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 guys! I was reading the Grey Knight FAQ and came across a weird comment that I need some help understanding,

Q: What counts as a Daemon? (p21)
A: Everything in the Chaos Daemons codex (except for Chaos
Spawn), Daemon Princes, Possessed Chaos Space Marines,
Obliterators, summoned greater Daemons, summoned lesser
Daemons, any vehicle with the daemonic possesion upgrade,
Daemonhosts, Mandrakes, Kheradruakh the Decapitator, the
Avatar.

Q: That being the case, do all of the models listed above therefore have
the Daemon special rule on page 35 of the Warhammer 40,000
rulebook? (p21)
A: No. Only those models that specifically have the Daemon
special rule in their bestiary/army list entry follow the rules for
Daemons given in the rulebook.

So does this mean that all those units follow the BRB definition of Daemon special rule?
Thanks guys for any feedback you can give me!

No, Chaos Daemons codex use their own Daemon rule, as per their codex. Anything which has the "Daemon" rule that are not in the Daemon codex use the BRB daemon rule.

The have both rules. In the FAQ they models with de daemon rule follow the BRB daemon rule. And that doesn't contradict the Chaos daemon codex rule:
DAEMON
This special rule applies to every model in this army and includes the following four special rules:
Fearless[... ]

Every model has the Daemon rule (5++ and fear) which in the case of Chaos Daemons includes 4 sub-rules.

Yeah Nos, they use both. Essentially for DoC their daemon rule got expanded.

There is no direct contradiciton between the rules and they both are labled "Daemon" in their rules. Cheers for everyone. Daemons finally got a long needed buff (not that it is all that good )

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Yeah Nos, they use both. Essentially for DoC their daemon rule got expanded.

There is no direct contradiciton between the rules and they both are labled "Daemon" in their rules. Cheers for everyone. Daemons finally got a long needed buff (not that it is all that good )

I don't agree with this at all. No where in the BRB or any Codex do two Rules by the same name with different definitions become one "cumulative" rule.

One is defines as A + B + C + D
The other is defined as E

They don't magically become ABCDE

BRB Daemon in comparison Codex Daemon is the VERY DEFINITION of contradiction.

Codex Daemons use their Codex plus FAQ defined rule for Daemon, not Codex plus FAQ plus BRB.

Neither the Daemons codex, nor the BRB say to ignore the rules presented by either. They both have the same name so they both get the same things. Its like using "Eldar" based psychic powers on Dark Eldar. You may not like it but it works.

Another way to look at it is that they both define traits of a Daemon. None of the traits contradict each other so they use both sets of traits.

Except you cannot use Eldar powers on Dark Eldar, unless it is an IC attached to an Eldar unit.

Argument for a different thread. Actually, I think it is going on in a different thread.

Neither of their rules states that they cannot use the other. One is a group rule that pertains to the codex, the other os a blanket rule from the BRB. Becuase oit says it effects anything with Daemon in its special rules you now need a rule to tell you you cannot use another rule. You do not have it, thus you use both.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Argument for a different thread. Actually, I think it is going on in a different thread.

Neither of their rules states that they cannot use the other. One is a group rule that pertains to the codex, the other os a blanket rule from the BRB. Becuase oit says it effects anything with Daemon in its special rules you now need a rule to tell you you cannot use another rule. You do not have it, thus you use both.

The eldar powers on DE units? That was faq'd it doesnt work.

This one though, I don't believe they stack. It doesnt make sense. For example the codex says the model has a 4++ however the BRB says a 5++. that would be a conflict.

It would also be a conflict for abbadon to have a 4++ when his terminator armor gives him a 5++. It would be a conflict for a terminator w/ss to have a 3++ when his armor gives him a 5++. You go with the better saves. Exceptions to regular saves is nothing new.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Neither the Daemons codex, nor the BRB say to ignore the rules presented by either. They both have the same name so they both get the same things. Its like using "Eldar" based psychic powers on Dark Eldar. You may not like it but it works.

Another way to look at it is that they both define traits of a Daemon. None of the traits contradict each other so they use both sets of traits.

I am sorry but that is simply not supported by the Rules.

No where does it say in the Rulebook to combine the definitions of two different rules with the same name. You are "creating" a rule by adding the two together and that is not something that can't be done.

I am creating nothing. I am taking two rules with the same name, and applying both definitions. The BRB has a daemon USR, the codex has a Daemon rule for Daemons in the codex. You allpy both since they are both the DAEMON rule and neither has anything conflicting.

Both rules apply to Daemons. I have presented rules evidence. Now you must present what rules support your argument and not just plug your fingers in your ears and say "No it dosent"

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
I am creating nothing. I am taking two rules with the same name, and applying both definitions. The BRB has a daemon USR, the codex has a Daemon rule for Daemons in the codex. You allpy both since they are both the DAEMON rule and neither has anything conflicting.

OK, so let me ask you this. Do Chaos Space Marine Lightning Claws ignore armor?

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
I am taking two rules with the same name

Exactly, two rules. Nothing allows them to be combined.

Lets look at the Soul Grinder. It has the Daemon rule.
Now the FAQ says:

Page 45 – Soul Grinders.
Leave the text in brackets for the Daemon special rule as it is
but add “…and have the Fear special rule”.

If the two rules are supposed to be combined, it would already have fear from the BRB rule so there would be no need to for this. The reason it's added is because they are seperate rules.

There has been no rules support for combining special rules, the only support so far is wishfull thinking.

Edit: Just for the record, "Doesn't say I can't" is not rules support. It's failure to understand the rules.

1. The two rules have the same name.
2. Any model with that special rule has all of the special rules attachted to it.
3. The two rules do not contradict each other in anyway, unlike the CSM L-Claws and BRB L-Claws. Neither says ignore any other Daemon special rule.

I have presetned arguments as to why you can. No one is giving an argument as to why you cannot, they are just saying, you cannot.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
2. Any model with that special rule has all of the special rules attachted to it.

Of that rule, true. But not TWO rules.

3. The two rules do not contradict each other in anyway, unlike the CSM L-Claws and BRB L-Claws. Neither says ignore any other Daemon special rule.

They say different things, one gives one set of benifits, the other a different set. It's a contradiction.

I have presetned arguments as to why you can. No one is giving an argument as to why you cannot, they are just saying, you cannot.

I've just given the Soul Grinder as an example of why they don't combine.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
1. The two rules have the same name.
2. Any model with that special rule has all of the special rules attachted to it.
3. The two rules do not contradict each other in anyway, unlike the CSM L-Claws and BRB L-Claws. Neither says ignore any other Daemon special rule.

I have presetned arguments as to why you can. No one is giving an argument as to why you cannot, they are just saying, you cannot.

So you feel it is ok to combine Daemon Rules but Not LC rules?!? Now that is just silly.

The CSM LC does not contradict the BRB LC in any way, the rules are almost identical, the only difference is that CSM LC is a little stronger by also ignoring sv 2+

Ap2 and AP3 is not a contradiction according to your logic. And by your logic, I mean that if you think it is ok to apply BRB Daemon and Codex Daemon then you do not think that two different invulnerable saves contradict each other.

It is not a contradiction because the codex rule does not say "This daemon is not fear causing" while the BRB says "Daemons are fear causing."
While with the L-Claws it says, this is ap2, this is ap3. These are directly contradicitng. This has fear and 5++ is not contradicting any rules in the codex daemons definition.

I know there is a rules argument in one fo your posts somewhere....

As for the soul grinder, Just because they errated a rule does not mean it dosent share the base rule.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
It is not a contradiction because the codex rule does not say "This daemon is not fear causing" while the BRB says "Daemons are fear causing."
While with the L-Claws it says, this is ap2, this is ap3. These are directly contradicitng. This has fear and 5++ is not contradicting any rules in the codex daemons definition.

I know there is a rules argument in one fo your posts somewhere....

As for the soul grinder, Just because they errated a rule does not mean it dosent share the base rule.

yes, my rule argument is here:
Pg 7:
"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this
rulebook, and one printed in a codex.'Where this occurs, the
rule printed in the codex always takes precedence."

The issue is if you do not think that a BRB rule with name A and definition 123 and a Codex rule with name A and defintiion 456 is not a contradiction then I guess we will never be playing against each other.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
It is not a contradiction because the codex rule does not say "This daemon is not fear causing" while the BRB says "Daemons are fear causing."

One adds the Fear rule, the other doesn't. They are different.

As for the soul grinder, Just because they errated a rule does not mean it dosent share the base rule.

It does use the base Daemon rule, as found in the Codex.
If it used the BRB rule there would be no need to even have this Errata.

40k-noob 477272 4789936 wrote: nullyes, my rule argument is here:
Pg 7:
"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this
rulebook, and one printed in a codex.'Where this occurs, the
rule printed in the codex always takes precedence."

Its a good thing they dont conflict then isint it?

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Its a good thing they dont conflict then isint it?

Apart from being different, and therfore... conflicting.

No you are wrong.
Fear Causing and 5++
Fearless, Eternal Warrior, ECT.

None of those rules conflict at all in any way shape or form.

The GK FAQ is saying what a daemon is for the purposes of Preferred Enemy: Daemons, and then says that being a Daemon(for the above purpose) doesn't give you the Daemon special rule.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
No you are wrong.
Fear Causing and 5++
Fearless, Eternal Warrior, ECT.

None of those rules conflict at all in any way shape or form.

Invulnerable! as defined in the daemon codex says that the daemon's Armor Save is invulnerable.
The BRB Daemon rule says that the invulnerable save is 5+

That is a direct conflict. One is variable and the other is not.

So daemons have 2 invulnerable saves. Nothing prevents you from having 2 different invuln saves.

A SM captain in TDA with a Stormshield actually has 3 Invulnerable saves. He has the 5++ from the Terminator Armor, 4++ from his Ironhalo, and a 3++ from his Storm Shield.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
No you are wrong.
Fear Causing and 5++
Fearless, Eternal Warrior, ECT.

None of those rules conflict at all in any way shape or form.

I'm not the one that's wrong...

You're breaking up the rule. It's not the individual rules it grants that conflict, it's the rule itself.
The BRB grants 5++ and fear. Nothing else.
The Codex rule doesn't do this. Different benifits.
Same name, different rules. Because they grant different benifits, they contradict each other in which set you use.
You know what to do in the event of a contracdiction.. and it isn't comnbine the two...

40k-noob wrote:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
No you are wrong.
Fear Causing and 5++
Fearless, Eternal Warrior, ECT.

None of those rules conflict at all in any way shape or form.

Invulnerable! as defined in the daemon codex says that the daemon's Armor Save is invulnerable.
The BRB Daemon rule says that the invulnerable save is 5+

That is a direct conflict. One is variable and the other is not.

So you are saying that St. Celestine cannot have her 6++ from shield of faith as well as a 4++ from the armor of saint cathrine? The rules disagree with you mightily. Check your sources before you use and example because that was a bad one..

@Grendel- That is wrong. Vindicare and Eldar Rangers both have sniper weapons. These weapons also have other rules. Deos that mean that they no longer follow normal sniper rules? No. Again you are mistaken.

My reading of the posted faqs, infers that the units in C:CD, do benefit from both rules. The second question states that any model with the Daemon special rule benefits as per the rulebook. The codex states that anything within the codex with the daemon special rule gains the listed bonuses.

For an instance of a model with the Daemon rule that does not follow the rulebook, look at the errata for the Avatar of Khaine.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
No you are wrong.
Fear Causing and 5++
Fearless, Eternal Warrior, ECT.

None of those rules conflict at all in any way shape or form.

Invulnerable! as defined in the daemon codex says that the daemon's Armor Save is invulnerable.
The BRB Daemon rule says that the invulnerable save is 5+

That is a direct conflict. One is variable and the other is not.

So you are saying that St. Celestine cannot have her 6++ from shield of faith as well as a 4++ from the armor of saint cathrine? The rules disagree with you mightily. Check your sources before you use and example because that was a bad one.

That's not saying they get 2 invulnerable saves. 2 saves is possible, but that's not what was said there.
It's actually a good example.
One is a fixed invulnerable save, the other works out the save differently.
Two rules, handeling something in different ways. They clearly contradict.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
@Grendel- That is wrong. Vindicare and Eldar Rangers both have sniper weapons. These weapons also have other rules. Deos that mean that they no longer follow normal sniper rules? No. Again you are mistaken.

Again, you've failed to grasp the rules.
Rangers have long rifles.
These rifles have the Sniper rule.
No conflict there, nothing I've said would suggest there is.