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.

This isn't exactly a rules debate, but didn't know where else to ask.

How long does it usually take for GW to release a FAQ for a new codex? I recall the DA FAQ coming out pretty quickly....
Also, does anyone know whether Yakface emailed that giant list to gamefaqs@games-workshop.co.uk?

They (GW) are probably holding off since the new Tau codex comes out soon.

Seems like a good place to ask this...

I don't see ANY Daemon FAQ listed for 40k, does that mean old ones no longer apply? Specifically, the ruling that you can't join IC's and units in between Chaos Marines and Daemons doesn't apply at the moment? I don't know the exact wording of the old rule because i'm just now starting; I want to have daemon allies with my CSM army, and have my Juggernaut join Bloodcrushers

I'd say that depends. If that restriction is still present in the CSM FAQ, it would still apply. If it was only present in the old CD FAQ, then it is probably no longer valid.

Taow wrote:
Seems like a good place to ask this...

I don't see ANY Daemon FAQ listed for 40k, does that mean old ones no longer apply? Specifically, the ruling that you can't join IC's and units in between Chaos Marines and Daemons doesn't apply at the moment? I don't know the exact wording of the old rule because i'm just now starting; I want to have daemon allies with my CSM army, and have my Juggernaut join Bloodcrushers

The old Daemon FAQ no longer matters. It's been superseded by the new codex.

Your correct that the old FAQ doesn't matter anymore, being that's it's no longer listed amongst the other FAQ's and that it's for a different codex(book not army). Unfortunately you'll should read the Daemonic Instability rule on page 26 of the new codex.

Bah, missed it, tricky wording. Too bad every non vehicle in the codex has that rule. That fluff is ruining much cooler fluff...

Elric Greywolf wrote:
This isn't exactly a rules debate, but didn't know where else to ask.

How long does it usually take for GW to release a FAQ for a new codex? I recall the DA FAQ coming out pretty quickly....
Also, does anyone know whether Yakface emailed that giant list to gamefaqs@games-workshop.co.uk?

Not yet (emailing them).

My primary concern was getting the questions collated so we could get the Adepticon FAQ published, but now that is out of the way (for the most part), I'll go ahead and email in that batch of questions immediately.

While it obviously won't benefit whatever next FAQ they put out (it takes them a while to do each update and get them translated), hopefully any they miss can be added in the next go-around.

I really hope GW releases a Daemons FAQ in the next few days because some of the rulings we decided on for the Adepticon FAQ were the kind where it felt like there was no good answer no matter which way we went (like most of the Fiend rulings), so those are always the ones that GW really needs to step up and get fixed ASAP.

Taow wrote:
Bah, missed it, tricky wording. Too bad every non vehicle in the codex has that rule. That fluff is ruining much cooler fluff...

The rule only prevents IC's without demonic instability from joining units with it. It doesn't prevent demon IC's from joining CSM.

 BarBoBot wrote:

Unfortunately you'll should read the Daemonic Instability rule on page 26 of the new codex.

The rule only prevents IC's without demonic instability from joining units with it. It doesn't prevent demon IC's from joining CSM.

Right, the rule preventing Daemon ICs from joining CSM units is under Daemonic Alignment, where it tells us that Daemons can only join units that are entirely composed of Daemons of the same alignment. The only unit in the CSM codex with a D.A. is the Daemon Prince, and since ICs can't join units that are always composed of one model...

Funny thing is, the German version of the errata was out within a week of the publishing.

It was just errata correcting mistakes that they noticed after the print run. But still.

There is the Adepticon FAQ. That's a little closer I guess?

 Mannahnin wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:

Unfortunately you'll should read the Daemonic Instability rule on page 26 of the new codex.

The rule only prevents IC's without demonic instability from joining units with it. It doesn't prevent demon IC's from joining CSM.

Right, the rule preventing Daemon ICs from joining CSM units is under Daemonic Alignment, where it tells us that Daemons can only join units that are entirely composed of Daemons of the same alignment. The only unit in the CSM codex with a D.A. is the Daemon Prince, and since ICs can't join units that are always composed of one model...

Would Warp Talons with the same Mark count? They are Daemons after all.

Yes, going by strict rules as written, however this one way allowance (Daemon ICs can join "mortal" units, but not vice versa) seems odd, so may be FAQ'd away

It'd be nice to see a FAQ soon. If the Burning Chariot works, I'd be tempted to start a Daemon List that features 3 of those puppies.

40k-noob wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:

Unfortunately you'll should read the Daemonic Instability rule on page 26 of the new codex.

The rule only prevents IC's without demonic instability from joining units with it. It doesn't prevent demon IC's from joining CSM.

Right, the rule preventing Daemon ICs from joining CSM units is under Daemonic Alignment, where it tells us that Daemons can only join units that are entirely composed of Daemons of the same alignment. The only unit in the CSM codex with a D.A. is the Daemon Prince, and since ICs can't join units that are always composed of one model...

Would Warp Talons with the same Mark count? They are Daemons after all.

Nop, since Mark of and Daemon of are two different things and even give different bonuses.

You can use the Grimoire on 'em though!

 Lord Yayula wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:

Unfortunately you'll should read the Daemonic Instability rule on page 26 of the new codex.

The rule only prevents IC's without demonic instability from joining units with it. It doesn't prevent demon IC's from joining CSM.

Right, the rule preventing Daemon ICs from joining CSM units is under Daemonic Alignment, where it tells us that Daemons can only join units that are entirely composed of Daemons of the same alignment. The only unit in the CSM codex with a D.A. is the Daemon Prince, and since ICs can't join units that are always composed of one model...

Would Warp Talons with the same Mark count? They are Daemons after all.

Nop, since Mark of and Daemon of are two different things and even give different bonuses.

The rule say daemons of the same alignment not daemons of the same benefits.

Unfortunately "of the same alignment" isn't defined.
A Daemon with Mark of Nurgle and Daemon of Nurgle are both technically aligned to the same God.

I would have a blast joining together a unit of Screamers and a Tzeentch Lord on a Disc. Alas, it's not to be.

40k-noob wrote:

 Lord Yayula wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:

Unfortunately you'll should read the Daemonic Instability rule on page 26 of the new codex.

The rule only prevents IC's without demonic instability from joining units with it. It doesn't prevent demon IC's from joining CSM.

Right, the rule preventing Daemon ICs from joining CSM units is under Daemonic Alignment, where it tells us that Daemons can only join units that are entirely composed of Daemons of the same alignment. The only unit in the CSM codex with a D.A. is the Daemon Prince, and since ICs can't join units that are always composed of one model...

Would Warp Talons with the same Mark count? They are Daemons after all.

Nop, since Mark of and Daemon of are two different things and even give different bonuses.

The rule say daemons of the same alignment not daemons of the same benefits.

Unfortunately "of the same alignment" isn't defined.
A Daemon with Mark of Nurgle and Daemon of Nurgle are both technically aligned to the same God.

Daemonic Alignment is very clearly defined in the Chaos Daemon codex. It means that the model has the Daemon of Khorne, Daemon of Slaanesh, Daemon of Nurgle, or Daemon of Tzeentch special rules. Any of those four is a Daemonic Alignment. A Mark of a given chaos god is an unrelated rule, with a different name and different effects. It is no more equivalent to D.A. than Fearless is equivalent to And They Shall Know No Fear. Just because two rules seem to be describing a similar concept doesn't make them the same.

The only unit in the CSM codex with a Daemonic Alignment is the Daemon Prince.

 Mannahnin wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 Lord Yayula wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:

Unfortunately you'll should read the Daemonic Instability rule on page 26 of the new codex.

The rule only prevents IC's without demonic instability from joining units with it. It doesn't prevent demon IC's from joining CSM.

Right, the rule preventing Daemon ICs from joining CSM units is under Daemonic Alignment, where it tells us that Daemons can only join units that are entirely composed of Daemons of the same alignment. The only unit in the CSM codex with a D.A. is the Daemon Prince, and since ICs can't join units that are always composed of one model...

Would Warp Talons with the same Mark count? They are Daemons after all.

Nop, since Mark of and Daemon of are two different things and even give different bonuses.

The rule say daemons of the same alignment not daemons of the same benefits.

Unfortunately "of the same alignment" isn't defined.
A Daemon with Mark of Nurgle and Daemon of Nurgle are both technically aligned to the same God.

Daemonic Alignment is very clearly defined in the Chaos Daemon codex. It means that the model has the Daemon of Khorne, Daemon of Slaanesh, Daemon of Nurgle, or Daemon of Tzeentch special rules. Any of those four is a Daemonic Alignment. A Mark of a given chaos god is an unrelated rule, with a different name and different effects. It is no more equivalent to D.A. than Fearless is equivalent to And They Shall Know No Fear. Just because two rules seem to be describing a similar concept doesn't make them the same.

The only unit in the CSM codex with a Daemonic Alignment is the Daemon Prince.

You are reading things in to the rule that are not there.

The rule says this:

Daemonic Alignment
Daemons can only join units that are composed entirely of Daemons of the same alignment as themselves (i.e. a Herald of Slaanesh may not join a unit of Plaguebearers).

that is it, that is all there to it. It does not go on to the define "..Daemons of the same alignment as themselves..." as having the same Daemon of .... special rule.

edit: spelling

The "Daemon of..." sections are subparagraphs to the Demonic Alignment paragraph. If those are not demonic alignments, then none exist except for the example given. A Herald of Slaneesh may not join a unit of Plaguebearers. No other rules for it are given.

Yup. Daemonic Alignment is a section under Daemon Special rules. It contains an introductory paragraph telling us that a daemon can only join a unit of the same alignment, with an example showing exactly what they're talking about, and then four sub-sections defining the four Daemonic Alignments.

I'm not sure how it could be much more clear.

I wonder if the iBooks make the FAQ's come out later?

 loreweaver wrote:
I wonder if the iBooks make the FAQ's come out later?

I certainly don't think it can help.

Incorporating those changes is even more work on top of just translating FAQ updates into eight languages (or however many they do)...I'm assuming they have to translate the iBook changes into all those languages too.

It's odd though...they write FAQ questions/answers in the PDF that they then spend the time to actually write as actual changes to rules in the iBook. Why not just write it in the PDF as either an 'errata' or 'amendment' so they're not wasting time writing the same thing twice in two different ways? That has kind of baffled me.

Just a note to something quoted earlier.
The rule preventing Ic's from joining units that only ever consist of 1 model is absent from the 6th edition rulebook. nor is it in the faq's (unless they have hidden it somewhere completely out of place as its not in the character or indipendent character sections.)

Rakear wrote:
Just a note to something quoted earlier.
The rule preventing Ic's from joining units that only ever consist of 1 model is absent from the 6th edition rulebook. nor is it in the faq's (unless they have hidden it somewhere completely out of place as its not in the character or indipendent character sections.)

You are looking in the wrong places then. Check the Special Rules section on page 39

Doh, sorry, your right its written right at the top.must have missed it when i went looking for it.

 yakface wrote:
It's odd though...they write FAQ questions/answers in the PDF that they then spend the time to actually write as actual changes to rules in the iBook. Why not just write it in the PDF as either an 'errata' or 'amendment' so they're not wasting time writing the same thing twice in two different ways? That has kind of baffled me.

Part of the big sell behind the iBooks is convenience. It's why they're cross-referenced with unit entries and special rules available in the army list instead of having to flick back for it. Making you keep the FAQ saved and having to refer to both would defeat that purpose.
Not a lot of people notice, but Erratas are corrected in future print runs of the physical books as well - not sure about Amendments. This means they have to have been updating the files behind the Codexes before iBooks turned up. I can't imagine it's difficult work or that much extra - added time, sure, but not a massive amount.

So, just wishing for Clarity here for the sake of my friend (and possibly a mistake in my own deployment), could a CSM DP w/ DoT and the other gubbins join a unit of Flamers/Screamers?

EDIT: as long as he kept to Glide mode?