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 still see no problem with taking the effects given to chaos lords as part of "normal," since daemon weapons are normally wielded by chaos lords. I realize that there is no definitive answer since "normal daemon weapon" is never explicitly defined. However, I think my solution is far more reasonable than denying any extra ability, as the rules do explicitly say that some extra ability should be conferred. We're not told what that ability is for models who aren't lords, but since lords wielding daemon weapons are the "normal" case, I see no problem in extending the rule to Typhus's "normal" daemon weapon.

However, you have not addressed the argument of the other point of view here. In order to 'win' a RAW discussion, you have to disprove the opposing argument with RAW. Your quotes informed us all of the rule, but the other side is pointing to a section of the rule for daemon weapons that relate specifically to 'Chaos Lords' who wield them. Until you show that their interpretation is faulty (ie showing Typhus actually is a Chaos Lord despite his codex entry), then you are just trading words and no resolution is possible. I am, so far, leaning towards the opposing point of view because they have more specific support from RAW.

I already did here:

"A Chaos Lord has a Deamon Weapon appropriate to their patron god." is not a restrictive sentence. It doesn't say "only chaos lords can have the following deamon weapons", is isn't a restrictive statement at all, if anything it's a fluff statement in a fluff paragraph.

No proof that Typhus is a Chaos Lord is necessary because such a restriction does not exist. All it says is what a Chaos Lord has, the wording is not restrictive enough to prove per RAW that only Chaos Lords can have the following. Furthermore, the statement that is drawn from is a fluff paragraph.

The only thing that matters is this statement "Has an additional ability that varies depending on the Mark given to the bearer, as described below."

This is a good point shirou... almost. But I think you are using reverse justification. As I understand it, the Manreaper counts as a normal daemon weapon in so far as the rules can be applied to Typhus. The abnormality here has nothing to do with the weapon or its actions- it has everything to do with the model wielding it and his status (if I follow their argument correctly). The opposing argument holds that the part of daemon weapon rules relating to Chaos Lords wielding them is null and void since Typhus is not one. The rest of the daemon weapon rules apply.

The problem with this argument is that it is selective rules application. You are making the arguement that because it is a "normal" Deamon Weapon, then somehow the rules for Deamon Weapons apply differently to it.

We have a very comprehensive list on what a Deamon Weapon is:

A Deamon Weapon:
- Requires two hands to use.
- Is a power weapon.
- Adds an extra D6 attacks in close combat. Roll the dice every time the model is about to attack. If the result is a 1 - the model may not make any attacks in this round and suffers one wound with no armor saves allowed.
- Has an additional ability that varies depending on the Mark given to the bearer, as described below.

Those are the only rules for the benefits a Deamon Weapons confers, "normal" or otherwise.

My arguement is that every and all Deamon Weapons follow those rules, period. A "normal" Deamon Weapon follows those rules. So Normally a Deamon Weapon is modified "depending on the Mark given to the bearer". typhus has a Mark of Nurgle and a Deamon Weapon, the conclusion is obvious.

Mahu wrote:

We have a very comprehensive list on what a Deamon Weapon is:

A Deamon Weapon:
- Requires two hands to use.
- Is a power weapon.
- Adds an extra D6 attacks in close combat. Roll the dice every time the model is about to attack. If the result is a 1 - the model may not make any attacks in this round and suffers one wound with no armor saves allowed.
- Has an additional ability that varies depending on the Mark given to the bearer, as described below.

Those are the only rules for the benefits a Deamon Weapons confers, "normal" or otherwise.

My arguement is that every and all Deamon Weapons follow those rules, period. A "normal" Deamon Weapon follows those rules. So Normally a Deamon Weapon is modified "depending on the Mark given to the bearer". typhus has a Mark of Nurgle and a Deamon Weapon, the conclusion is obvious.

The conclusion sure is obvious. Typhus's Manreaper has an additional ability that varies depending on the Mark given to him (the Mark of Nurgle). Unfortunately, the rules for that additional ability for a non-Lord model with a Demon weapon can't be found anywhere in the codex, so it's not possible to logically conclude that Typhus's Demon weapon wounds on a 4+. It might make the most sense, it might be the most reasonable, it might be the conclusion GW intended. But the evidence is not there. Unless of course we decide that the fact that Typhus's model is found in the miniature gallery entitled "Lords of Chaos" means he is a Chaos Lord, which might be intuitively sensible but just isn't justified by any GW rule.


Let me be clear since this argument, while fun, is getting pointless and repetitive:

The only viable argument left to debate is whether Typhus's inclusion in the "Lords of Chaos" gallery qualifies him as a Chaos Lord. If you disagree with any other part of the argument, then you will see that every other possible statement has been proven infallibly already in this thread, several times.

Terminizzle wrote:Valid logic means the premises prove the conclusion. I made a mistake, actually- your argument's form IS valid, but it is not sound, since one of the premises used to prove the conclusion is made up (that Only Chaos Lords have Demon Weapons). Let me present an identical argument:

1. Dogs are cats.
2. Cats have four legs.
3. Therefore, dogs have four legs.

Good form, the conclusion happens to be true, but the argument doesn't work because the first premise is just pulled out of thin air.

Except that Typhus is a Chaos Lord, as cited on P.67. The first premise is true. Therefore the argument is not simply valid, but sound as well.

Page 66 of the Chaos Codex settles the argument, and I can't believe I've missed it so many times.

It's not that the gallery is entitled "Lords of Chaos" or that Typhus's picture is present. It's this part of the blurb under the title "Lords of Chaos."

"...these Chaos Lords are infamous reavers..."

So the premise was true, but the viable evidence hadn't been pointed out yet.

Typhus is a Chaos Lord, then, so his Demon Weapon wounds on a 4+ in addition to the Manreaper rules. This is only due to the fact that the blurb before the Lords of Chaos gallery identifies them as Chaos Lords, not for any other reason.

I did mention this before, when I described the argument you requested. Still, you're welcome.

Mahu wrote:"A Chaos Lord has a Deamon Weapon appropriate to their patron god." is not a restrictive sentence. It doesn't say "only chaos lords can have the following deamon weapons", is in't a restrictive statement at all, if anything it's a fluff statement in a fluff paragraph.

Right. Even if the sentence did say "only chaos lords can have the following daemon weapons", it still wouldn't be relevant to this discussion, because Typhus' specific rule would contradict it anyway. Actually, if the sentence did say that, then Nurglitch's syllogism would work as he described it. I kind of liked his syllogism post. It was delightfully brief compared to some of his more... we'll say "wordy" postings.

Mahu wrote:There is no such distinction between the "named" Deamon Weapons and a "normal" Deamon Weapon because a Deamon Weapon "has an additional ability that varies depending on the Mark given to the bearer, as described below." Therefore, a "normal" deamon weapon always takes on the ability of the mark.

This is spot on. Clearly "normal" demon weapons will have an ability based on the mark of the bearer--that is to say, any bearer, including special characters. This is important, because it totally shuts down the argument that having a "normal" daemon weapon prevents Typhus from having the ability of the Plaguebringer. So far, so good. If we stopped here, Typhus would have a poisoned weapon beyond the shadow of a doubt.

However, there is one more rule that Mahu overlooks, and for me, it's the only critical point left in this argument. It's the words next to the entry for the Plaguebringer: "(Lords with Mark of Nurgle)", more specifically the word "Lords". Now, the big question is "what does that mean?", and I think we have two choices: it's either telling us that chaos lords with the Mark of Nurgle have the Plaguebringer (a statement that doesn't restrict the mark to lords only, but is simply a clarification), or that only chaos lords with the Mark of Nurgle can have the Plaguebringer (which would restrict them to units under the heading "chaos lords" only).

As to how to solve this dilemma, I'm not totally sure. It would be much better if they had kept their language consistent; for example, saying "bearers with Mark of Nurgle" instead of "lords with. . ." However, I am of the opinion that Typhus has the Plaguebringer rule for the following reasons. For one, the statement reads as a clarification more than a restriction to me. This is probably because the codex never uses a strong, restrictive word like "only", and the fact that, other than this line, the rules fully endorse Typhus having the Plaguebringer ability. My second, related, reason is that the 4th bullet point: "Has an additional ability. . ." seems to contradict the later supposed restriction of Typhus not getting an additional ability. If that's the case, shouldn't the statement have read "May have an additional ability. . ."? My final reason is based on RAB [rules as balanced, heh]; considering his point cost, I think Typhus is balanced having this ability.

Actually I lied, my final reason is that the Plaguebringer is cool and I want Typhus to have lots of cool abilities. Yay Typhus.

Edit: Bah, I should have read the remaining posts before I submitted this. Oh well, at least it's hopefully settled now.

My arguement was that you don't have to prove that Typhus is a Chaos Lord, because no such restriction applies. The only two times it mentions Lords in the Deamon Weapon entry is a fluff paragraph, and an clarifying parenthesis. Neither is a restrictive statement.

Besides, it looks like Tphus has been proven to be a Chaos Lord.

To prove, per RAW, that Typhus doesn't get the benefit, you would have to prove one of two things:

1. When called out as a Normal Deamon weapon, that somehow creates a selective application of the rules for Deamon Weapons.

2. That there is definitive wording that only Chaos Lords can take marks on their Deamon Weapons.

For the first, we have a comprehensive list of abilities a Deamon Weapon confers to those that wield it. The whole list has to apply, it selective rules application to say there are parts that don't. (Basically saying only 3 out of 4 conditions apply).

For the second, you would have to prove that either "A Chaos Lord has a Deamon Weapon appropriate to their patron god." or "(Lords with a Mark of Nurgle)" is a restrictives sentence. The first is most definitely not, because saying it is is like saying because Bob has a gun then Bill can't have one which isn't logical. The second could be argued as a restrictive sentence, but it is a very week arguement, all it really says is that "Lords with a Mark of Nurgle have this", which is another illogical statement. Just because one model can or has this doesn't mean that another model can't have it.

I have a hard time why this is even an issue. Typhus' Manreaper has all the abilities of a Deamon Weapon, we have a clear definition of what such a weapon confers. Typhus also has the Mark of Nurgle. Therefore Typhus' Deamon Weapon gains the abilities of any other Deamon Weapon with wielded by a model with the Mark of Nurgle. That's all there is to it.

Mahu: The quote from the text describing Manreaper says: "Treat Manreaper as a normal Daemon Weapon," and it's rather important to distinguish between the adjective "normal" and the compound noun "Daemon Weapon". The former is simply descriptive while the latter is a title, the descriptor for which references the rules found on P.93, the normal ones.

so has a conclusion been reached? i play with typhus and would like to have a RAW anwser if somebody calls me on it.

1) Manreaper is a demon weapon and a force weapon that follows the rules for normal deamon weapons on p.93

There may be no selective reading of the rules for demon weapons. A normal deamon weapon follows them all. This includes the line "Has an additional ability that varies depending on the Mark given to the bearer, as described below

2) Typus has the Mark of Nurgle as stated in his entry on p.90

No question here, he does have the mark of nurgle

3) Typus is a Chaos Lord because he is included in the 'Chaos Lords' gallery on p.66-67, which includes the line "...these Chaos Lords are infamous reavers".

Although this is subject to debate, the RAW argument is that nowhere in the rule book does it say that text in the hobby section of the book should be discounted in relation to the rules. Therefore Typhus is a Chaos Lord. If this is not accepted than you cannon make an argument based on pure RAW

This is the RAW argument. On the basis of those 3 points it can be concluded that Manreaper is a Plaguebringer.

This is a horrible example of where GW hasn't bothered to read its own rules. Hopefully it will be cleared up in an errata soon.

My argument has always been that there is no "Choas Lord" restriction. If somebidy can find a rule that says "Only choas lords have thus", then I could be proven wrong. A fluff sentence and a clarifying parentheses does not a restriction make.

It's not so much that GW doesn't read its own rules, it's that a GW employee, or rather the writer or co-writer of the codex, knows what was going on in their heads at the time of writing. "Functions as a normal daemon weapon" is clear as a bell to them and, assuming those of us in support of the Plaguereaper are correct, sounds to them like it's supposed to be that way.

Then other people might read it and think differently. English is weird that way, in that we can play catch with grandpa and be domestic or play catch WITH grandpa and be demented.

Mahu makes a compelling argument, and based upon my independent understanding of the pertinent rules, I agree. The manreaper is a plaguebringer that also has the abilities of a force weapon.

It wouldn't be the first time GW gave way over the top abilities to chaos models/characters.

(post edit)

As an aside, what were Typhus's rules in the last chaos codex (mine isn't handy). Might provide some clarification. If he wounded on a 4+ before, it wouldn't be a big stretch to figure he still wounds on a 4+.

Edit: nevermind, it's all clear. Mahu just reread the thread.

I completely agree with Speelbound. In fact, I was going to post the same point.

Typhus has a weapon that counts as a daemon weapon + he has mark of nurgle. You can't use mysterious loopholes to change facts. It might not say that Typhus is a lord but he IS!!! You cant say "ONLY LORDS CAN HAVE DAEMON WEAPONS WITH SPECIAL RULES!!!" Daemon weapons work like that! The generic rules are just a rule that ALL daemon weapons follow (as others may have pointed out). AND THEN, the daemon weapon gets one bonus based on which mark he bears! This is just for simplicity! To show that they have an allegiance to 1 chaos god, therefore they bear a weapon witht that gods "upgrades" (if you can call it that).

AND REMEMBER! THERE IS NO NORMAL DAEMON WEAPON! EVERYONE KEEPS SAYING THAT IT CAN BE EITHER A "NORMAL" DAEMON WEAPON OR IT CAN BE A NURGLE DAEMON WEAPON!

Over a year old.... There is a popup that warns you when you are about to Necro... Why? Why did you do it?

Quick! Kill it with holy promethium!

Mod: Thread locked for Necronization.