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.

Question is whenever independent characters from Codex Daemons (i.e. heralds) can join non-demonic units (i.e. their only bros in arms, CSM)?
In codex the rule says:
"Daemons can only join units that are comprised entirely of Daemons of the same alignment as themselves (i.e. a herald of slaanesh may not join a unit of plaguebearers)"
So does this mean that herald of slaanesh can
1) ONLY join other units of slaaneshy daemons
2) Cannot join units of non- slaaneshy daemons, so can join non-daemon Csmunits
If you are for option 1), does this means that herald of slaanesh can join CSM daemon units with mark of slaanesh (say Obliterators of slaanesh)?

this post of mine was wrong, ignore please

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Read the Daemonic Instability special rule and your answer will be found

ie. Heralds can not join any csm units or, indeed, any unit not in C: CD

Daemonic Instability doesn't answer the question. It tells us that non-Daemonically Instanble (sic) ICs can't join units with DI, but Ratliker has correctly identified Daemonic Alignment as the rule which prevents Chaos Daemon IC from joining units from Codex: Chaos Space Marines.

Ratliker wrote:1) ONLY join other units of slaaneshy daemons
2) Cannot join units of non- slaaneshy daemons, so can join non-daemon Csmunits
If you are for option 1), does this means that herald of slaanesh can join CSM daemon units with mark of slaanesh (say Obliterators of slaanesh)?

It's very much 1. And no, you can't join Oblits. They have the Daemon USR, but they don't have the Daemon of Slaanesh special rule, which gives Rending, Fleet, +3" to Run moves, and the ability to be joined by ICs with Daemon of Slaanesh.

The only unit in the CSM codex with a Daemonic Alignment (ie: a "Daemon of...") is the Daemon Prince. And he can't be joined by any ICs (per the standard IC rules) as he's always a unit of one model.

I keep forgetting how Independent Characters work... you'd think I'd have learnt by now, thanks for correcting me.

Basically, ignore what I said, I need to re-read the independent character section a few more times so it sticks

Not having a Daemon or CSM army, the books or the BRB handy, let me throw my two cents in. If the rule specifically lists that heralds can only join units that are composed entirely of daemons (ignoring relevant marks and such for now) then the rule is pretty solid, I'd say they can only join units with the USR daemon (or is it a unit type?).

 Hereticdave wrote:
I'd say they can only join units with the USR daemon (or is it a unit type?).

It's nothing to do with the Daemon USR, they need the "Daemon of ...X" rule

 Hereticdave wrote:
Not having a Daemon or CSM army, the books or the BRB handy, let me throw my two cents in.

How about next time you don't? I already stated what the rule is, and that the Daemon USR has nothing to do with it, so why on earth would you cloud the issue by making false statements on speculation? If a person makes a definitive statement about a rule, and you're not 100% sure, you should check the rule before you post a contradiction.

 Mannahnin wrote:

How about next time you don't? I already stated what the rule is, and that the Daemon USR has nothing to do with it, so why on earth would you cloud the issue by making false statements on speculation? If a person makes a definitive statement about a rule, and you're not 100% sure, you should check the rule before you post a contradiction.

Easy killer. I think he might have a point. Looking at the specific wording of the daemonic alignment it seems a little vague

Daemons can only join units that are entirely composed of daemons of the same alignment as themselves

It hints that the unit must have "Daemon of X" rule, but does not specifically state it. In fact, Warp talons with the mark of slaanesh are "daemons of the same alignment" as a slaanesh herald. It fits the bill, so i could see this happening in a tournament. This only requirement is met, so i believe it to be 100% legal

thisisnotpancho wrote:
Warp talons with the mark of slaanesh are "daemons of the same alignment" as a slaanesh herald.

No, that's a Daemon in favour with Slaanesh, not a Daemon of Slaanesh. You need to understand the basics of Marks.

I believe that is just another interpretation of the rule. As is mine, but i think it could be allowed at tournaments.

I have to say I am in the no category here.

The rule set for daemonic alignment on page 26 is formatted in such a way that the daemon of x section is clearly a subsection of this rule. That would mean these daemon of X rules are the 'alignments' they are talking about. If you lack one of these specific rules, then you do not have the alignment, even if you are a daemon that works for and is marked by the god in question.

I could see this all being changed if Games Workshop wants to work on their errata and FAQ's, so don't hold your breath on it changing any time soon.

There are four different sub-types of the rule "Daemonic Alignment": "Daemon of Slaanesh," "Daemon of Khorne," "Daemon of Tzeentch," and "Daemon of Nurgle." ICs in the Daemon codex can only join units with the rule "Daemonic Alignment," and the IC's sub-alignment must matche the unit's sub-alignment.

There is no model from another codex that has the rule "Daemonic Alignment." Thus, No ICs in the Daemon codex can ever join a unit from another codex.

I still think that that is an interpretation. I understand your point of view, however, when it states that the unit must be composed "entirely of Daemons with the same alignment as themselves", it's not specifically stating that the unit must have the rule "Daemon of X"

The rule you quoted, under that it then shows you what those Daemonic Allignments are.

thisisnotpancho wrote:
I still think that that is an interpretation. I understand your point of view, however, when it states that the unit must be composed "entirely of Daemons with the same alignment as themselves", it's not specifically stating that the unit must have the rule "Daemon of X"

"Daemon of X" is a sub-type of "Daemonic Alignment." Thus, "Daemon of Khorne" is a Daemonic Alignment. For a Khorne herald to join a unit, both the unit and the IC must have the alignment "Daemon of Khorne." Warp Talons cannot have the alignment "Daemon of Khorne," since only things from the Daemon book have Daemonic Alignments. Warp Talons do have "Daemon" and "Mark of Khorne," but neither of these two rules are the same as the rule "Daemon of Khorne."

What rule do you think gives Warp Talons (for example) a "Daemonic Alignment," the rule listed on p26 of the Daemon codex?

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

thisisnotpancho wrote:
I still think that that is an interpretation. I understand your point of view, however, when it states that the unit must be composed "entirely of Daemons with the same alignment as themselves", it's not specifically stating that the unit must have the rule "Daemon of X"

"Daemon of X" is a sub-type of "Daemonic Alignment." Thus, "Daemon of Khorne" is a Daemonic Alignment. For a Khorne herald to join a unit, both the unit and the IC must have the alignment "Daemon of Khorne." Warp Talons cannot have the alignment "Daemon of Khorne," since only things from the Daemon book have Daemonic Alignments. Warp Talons do have "Daemon" and "Mark of Khorne," but neither of these two rules are the same as the rule "Daemon of Khorne."

What rule do you think gives Warp Talons (for example) a "Daemonic Alignment," the rule listed on p26 of the Daemon codex?

Although the "Daemon of X" rule is a section under daemonic alignment, the rule for an IC joining a squad does not specify that they must have the "Daemon of X" special rule, nor any of the special rules under the section "Daemonic Alignment". It just states that the unit must be comprised of "Daemons of the same alignment". This does not explicitly state that the unit must have the "Daemon of X" USR, as you suggested. Slaanesh Warp talons are a unit composed of "Daemons of the same alignment" as a slaanesh herald, therefore are not restricted from being joined by the slaanesh herald.

"Daemons of the same alignment" is not specific enough to restrict the unit to be only "Daemon of X" as you suggest.

thisisnotpancho wrote:
"Daemons of the same alignment" is not specific enough to restrict the unit to be only "Daemon of X" as you suggest.

Ah I get it, so what you're saying is:
A Tesla Carbine is in fact a Boltgun.

On P56 of the BRB we have a section called Boltguns (let's call this section "Daemonic Allignment").
It then lists many types of Boltguns (let's call them "Daemon of X")

But clearly this should include all Tesla weapons (page 82 Codex:Necrons) because they fire Bolts (or "Mark of X").
Now Tesla weapons don't say they are Boltguns, and their description doesn't match a Boltgun. In the same way a Mark doesn't match an Allignment. But nevermind, we'll just assume it's close enough.

 grendel083 wrote:

thisisnotpancho wrote:
"Daemons of the same alignment" is not specific enough to restrict the unit to be only "Daemon of X" as you suggest.

Ah I get it, so what you're saying is:
A Tesla Carbine is in fact a Boltgun.

On P56 of the BRB we have a section called Boltguns (let's call this section "Daemonic Allignment").
It then lists many types of Boltguns (let's call them "Daemon of X")

But clearly this should include all Tesla weapons (page 82 Codex:Necrons) because they fire Bolts (or "Mark of X").
Now Tesla weapons don't say they are Boltguns, and their description doesn't match a Boltgun. In the same way a Mark doesn't match an Allignment. But nevermind, we'll just assume it's close enough.

I understand where you are coming from, but i do not think your example has a lot to do with what we are talking about. Again, "Daemons of the same alignment" can refer to Daemons in the CSM book with alignment of the same chaos god. Any Daemon that has the mark of the appropriate god is in fact a "Daemon of the same alignment" as a Herald in the Daemon book with the same aligned god.

However, both mine and yours are interpretations of a vague rule, as "Daemons of the same alignment" is not clear, and could be argued either way. GW will have to address this in a FAQ.

And if a slaanesh herald is able to join the CSM unit, does that make the unit susceptible to daemonic instability? I'd say yes, but I do not know exactly

Except a Mark does not show Allignment.
You need to understand what a Mark is. It shows the Gods favour, not what God the model is from.
A Daemon with a Mark of Khorne is not necessarily a Daemon of Khorne. It's a subtle but important difference.

 grendel083 wrote:
Except a Mark does not show Allignment.
You need to understand what a Mark is. It shows the Gods favour, not what God the model is from.
A Daemon with a Mark of Khorne is not necessarily a Daemon of Khorne. It's a subtle but important difference.

I do not mean to offend, but again i think that this is an interpretation of the rule. Mine is an interpretation as well, and i think that the only way this could be solved is for GW to address it.

thisisnotpancho wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
Except a Mark does not show Allignment.
You need to understand what a Mark is. It shows the Gods favour, not what God the model is from.
A Daemon with a Mark of Khorne is not necessarily a Daemon of Khorne. It's a subtle but important difference.

I do not mean to offend, but again i think that this is an interpretation of the rule. Mine is an interpretation as well, and i think that the only way this could be solved is for GW to address it.

Fear not, not offence take. Fortunately interpretations are not like religious beliefs. It's ok to point out why you think someone's interpretation is wrong without starting a war.

Marks have shown a gods blessing since marks for firsts introduced. Way way back it wasn't uncommon for a Daemon of a lesser God to receive the blessing of a greater.

But from a strictly rules perspective your interpretation allows them joining for no reason other than they have a rule with the word Slaanesh in it.

Daemonic Instability/Alignment makes no mention of Marks or Daemon USR. They might have similar sounding names to "Daemon of Slaanesh" but are not the same in the same way a Bolt firing Tesla weapon is a Boltgun.

"Sounds close enough" really is not a sufficient enough argument to use rule other than ones listed under Daemonic Instability.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but are they really making the argument that 'daemons of the same alignment' limitation is not talking about 'daemonic alignments?'

I guess the only way to address the argument from this point of view is to ask the simple question: Where in the Mark section, or any other special rule, is the line stating this is fills the requirement for the demonic alignment limitation?

This is very important as limitations need to be met before you can invoke any boon that contains then, or by-pass a restriction if we are talking about a special rule that is a bane. As the mark of X rule does not contain the fact it fills the requirement, then it does not fill the requirement. It doesn't matter if you can cram two rules together, and argue that it has a 'fluffy' explanation, unless one of them states in writing that it meats the requirement then the requirements have not been met.

I would also go ahead and point out the following: If it is talking about anything bar the daemonic alignment section of the same codex, then we have a huge problem. It would mean that the subsections of the daemonic alignment section also fail to fill the requirements listed by that argument, as the two terms wouldn't be talking about the same thing. If these are two completely separate terms, the only way that the daemonic alignment section of the book can not be talking about 'daemons of X alignment' then the whole section and it's subsections have no purpose.

Therefor, it could be argued, that daemonic IC's can not join any unit as all unit do not have the exact wording within their entries, or access to any rules stating, 'these are daemons of X alignment.'

Again, I would like to see Games Workshop address this in errata for a simple reason: I feel they will be willing to expand the marks to be considered daemonic alignments if they are placed on daemons. Till they do that, however, the only section of the book that has any hopes of filling the requirements 'daemons of X alignment' is the Daemonic alignment section. This does not include marks or other daemonic rules simply because they lack even a single sentence stating that they 'fill this requirement.'

As the deamon prince in the CSM codex does have the deamon of X rule, I have to side with the side saying the marks are different and not alignment... At least for raw.

HIWPI in friendly games I would let them join deamons with the right mark.

The Daemon Prince in the CSM codex makes this extra-super clear. He DOES have a Daemonic Alignment instead of a Mark.

And BECAUSE he has a Daemonic Alignment, and not a Mark, when the codex was released, a Daemon Prince of Khorne was unable to take the Axe of Blind Fury daemon weapon, because it has a stricture on it that it can only be taken by a model with the Mark of Khorne.

GW realized this, and so in the errata they changed the wording of the Axe's restriction, to say it can only be taken by models with the Mark of Khorne OR Daemon of Khorne. Thus explicitly confirming (if it wasn't already obvious enough) that "Daemon of" and "Mark of" are separate and distinct things.

I think It should be obvious enough to anyone who reads the two rules, as they have totally different effects (Mark of Khorne is a special rule granting Rage & Counterattack; Daemon of Khorne is a different special rule granting Furious Charge and Hatred (Daemons of Slaanesh), but the Axe situation should really nail home the point to anyone who reads the codices and the FAQs.

I agree with Rags. Not knowing the rules an opinion means nothing and just serves to muddy the waters.

Because it doesn't look like anyone has pointed it out yet, it's worth adding that Daemonic Instability in the back-of-book reference is worded much less stupidly:

Cannot join (or be joined by) models without this special rule.

The reference is often ignored when it conflicts with the primary rule, but this is less of a conflict and more of a clarification.

There's absolutely no joining of ICs to/from Daemon armies.

JinxDragon wrote:
Therefor, it could be argued, that daemonic IC's can not join any unit as all unit do not have the exact wording within their entries, or access to any rules stating, 'these are daemons of X alignment.'

While it is technically possible to assume this position ("it could be argued"), it would be silly to do so based on the rules.

Herald of Khorne has "Daemon of Khorne" rule, which is listed under the "Daemonic Alignment" rule; this gives him several other rules: "Daemon, Furious Charge, and Hatred (Daemons of Slaanesh)." Khorne units also have "Daemon of Khorne," listed under "Daemonic Alignment," giving them the same several rules.

This is pretty exact, I think. Could it be more exact by explicitly saying, "'Daemon of Khorne' is a type of 'Daemonic Alignment'"? Sure, but since "DoK" is already listed under "DA," then it's already pretty clear.

DJ3 wrote:
Because it doesn't look like anyone has pointed it out yet, it's worth adding that Daemonic Instability in the back-of-book reference is worded much less stupidly:

Cannot join (or be joined by) models without this special rule.

The reference is often ignored when it conflicts with the primary rule, but this is less of a conflict and more of a clarification.

There's absolutely no joining of ICs to/from Daemon armies.

I believe this settles it quite neatly. Completely unambiguous.

Dra'al Nacht wrote:

Cannot join (or be joined by) models without this special rule.

I believe this settles it quite neatly. Completely unambiguous.