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.

You didnt just open that can of worms did you?

FlingitNow wrote:Sorry I wasn't aware of any section in any codex that says which bits are rules and which bits aren't.

Codex: Space Marines, Page 3.
The section that tells you how the codex works. I won't quote it here to avoid GW Attack Pandas, but it's there nonetheless.

I am not going to even bother looking up the rest because they all are in roughly the same place.

There you go. Try reading a codex first before trying to argue the Rules aren't the same as RaW. Then maybe you will be "aware" of what the rules are and what the fluff is.

FlingitNow wrote:If in the codex a model is described as a Daemon anywhere that is RaW they are a Daemon.

But they do not necessarily count as one for the purposes of rules that ask for Deamons.

Also, where does it actually state daemon princes are daemons?

The first part says the ambition is to achieve daemonhood--not daemon prince hood.
So it would seem that daemon princes are closer than most to being a daemon, but it doesn't say anywhere that I see that they actually are one yet.

Apparently I am missing it since you keep saying it is written rules, not implied.

FlingitNow wrote:

You are stating that "RAW" anything which is described in background text as a daemon is a daemon?

Sorry I wasn't aware of any section in any codex that says which bits are rules and which bits aren't. If in the codex a model is described as a Daemon anywhere that is RaW they are a Daemon.

As Gwar! stated, actually reading a codex would be a good start.

Oddly enough RULES have something to do with the game, not background to the unit. THeres a simple way to look at it, if you need something more so let us know.

"You dont have to be a human to be a human prince"

what this is I don't even....

Would it reallly break the game for RAW enthusiasts to have a daemon prince be a daemon?

You can be a prince of X (indicated by being called X Prince) without being X yourself. To say otherwise indicates a lack of understanding of English.

asimo77 wrote:"You dont have to be a human to be a human prince"

what this is I don't even....

Would it reallly break the game for RAW enthusiasts to have a daemon prince be a daemon?

You could have your Khorne Berzerkers be Ork-Elf Hybrids for all the game cares so long as it doesn't affect the rules. However, the Daemon Prince being a daemon or not actually matters when you're playing against Daemonhunters.

The "RAW-enthusiasts" have no ability to delve into the minds of GW's intentions when they made the rules, so rather than risk an inconsistent-by-region RAI-approach, they seek RAW. RAW is objective and consistent regardless of what game shop you go to. If you want to make house-rules that say Daemon Princes are daemons, you and your LGS are free to do so. The rest of us will play Warhammer 40,000.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You can be a prince of X (indicated by being called X Prince) without being X yourself. To say otherwise indicates a lack of understanding of English.

Amusingly, the current English Prince Charles, Prince of Wales isn't Welsh. The last Welsh Prince of Wales was hundreds of years ago. The last Daemonic Daemon Prince was one codex ago.

Absolutionis wrote:The "RAW-enthusiasts" have no ability to delve into the minds of GW's intentions when they made the rules, ...

And the point that was made waaay back early on in the thread was that, at least in the case of Daemon Hunters, when GW wrote the rules, Daemon Princes were considered Daemons.

The only reason that RAW (arguably) now says that they are not is that there is now a codex entry entitled 'Daemon Prince' whereas when the codex was written 'Daemon Prince' was just a fluffy title for a Lord with certain wargear.



The simple fact is that RAW in this case doesn't give a complete answer. While you can certainly argue that RAW Daemon Princes aren't defined as Daemons any more, at least for the purposes of the DH codex it's a little wierd to not count them as such.

insaniak wrote:The simple fact is that RAW in this case doesn't give a complete answer. While you can certainly argue that RAW Daemon Princes aren't defined as Daemons any more, at least for the purposes of the DH codex it's a little wierd to not count them as such.

I don't think anyone's arguing that it's not weird that Daemon Princes are not Daemons, simply that that's how it is.

I don't think I need to tell you how many of GW's own rules make little to no sense in "real world" terms.

Freaking Daemons how do they work!?

I'd say just get the ambiguities out of the way so it's less stressful for both parties.

Kurgash wrote:Freaking Daemons how do they work!?

Fething Miracles!

@Insaniak, it is weird IN YOUR OPINION. The rules, which don't have one, are as clear as day.

Gwar! wrote:@Insaniak, it is weird IN YOUR OPINION.

We generally work on the assumption that it is not strictly necessary to add 'In my opinion' after every single thing you write, Gwar. The fact that I wrote it rather strongly suggests that it is my opinion.

A white horse is not a horse.

Ha, you have a point there nurglitch!

To the "its not a daemon" camp, would you go as far as disallowing anti-daemon effects on DPs in friendlies?

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:@Insaniak, it is weird IN YOUR OPINION.

We generally work on the assumption that it is not strictly necessary to add 'In my opinion' after every single thing you write, Gwar. The fact that I wrote it rather strongly suggests that it is my opinion.

Yet I am constantly being told that I have to state it... or that my "opinion" is wrong. -Shrug-

Nurglitch wrote:A white horse is not a horse.

No, it is a White Horse.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

liam0404 wrote:To the "its not a daemon" camp, would you go as far as disallowing anti-daemon effects on DPs in friendlies?

Yes. Rules are rules. Sometimes RaW is unclear or doesn't work, and you have to make stuff up. Here, RaW is 110% clear.

Its RAW, but Sometimes RAW just makes no sense. The DH codex is a relic of a previous time, its unfortunate that its happened. Surely you can see the merit of that argument?

liam0404 wrote: Its RAW, but Sometimes RAW just makes no sense. The DH codex is a relic of a previous time, its unfortunate that its happened. Surely you can see the merit of that argument?

No. RaW that makes "no sense" shouldn't be ignored. IMO, it doesn't make sense any of my Marines can die, or miss, or be hurt by grots. Should we ignore those rules? No, because they are clear. Similarly, the DH rules are also clear.

I know that the day we decide to pick rules selectively 40k is doomed, but id think were an intelligent enough community to deduce things on our own sometimes.

Here's an example, say a 5th chaos god is created, and it had its own greater daemon. Now let's say that this daemon is in a future version of CSM for whatever reason , and CSM are allowed to field that daemon. Given the current list of "eligibility ", you'd argue that this daemon wasn't a daemon?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I know that the day we decide to pick rules selectively 40k is doomed, but id think were an intelligent enough community to deduce things on our own sometimes.

Here's an example, say a 5th chaos god is created, and it had its own greater daemon. Now let's say that this daemon is in a future version of CSM for whatever reason , and CSM are allowed to field that daemon. Given the current list of "eligibility ", you'd argue that this daemon wasn't a daemon?

IF it is called a greater daemon then it would be a daemon. OR if it had the Daemon special rule.

Your question isnt clear though - do you mean from a DH point of view, or from a SW point of view?

In essence your hypothetical isnt concrete enough. And there IS a 5th chaos god, theyre just not allowed to talk about it....

I'm sorry I'm not making myself clear, just don't know how else to phrase this!

5th god would be intetesting mind you....

"You can be a prince of X (indicated by being called X Prince) without being X yourself. To say otherwise indicates a lack of understanding of English. "

Well firstly you seem to lack an understanding of manners. If I were a human prince I would be of the human race and have the station of prince. An ork prince would be an ork who has the the rank of prince. I suppose you could be a prince of X and not be an X, but if you were an X prince I think you'd be the same race as X.

"Amusingly, the current English Prince Charles, Prince of Wales isn't Welsh. The last Welsh Prince of Wales was hundreds of years ago. The last Daemonic Daemon Prince was one codex ago. "

But he is English right? The daemon prince isn't called prince of daemons. Then he could be a human prince of daemons, which would be a human who rules over daemons. Much like Charley is the English Prince of the Welsh. He's what comes before "prince" in the above cases daemon and human come before prince.

"The rest of us will play Warhammer 40,000."

Because a single house rule makes the game something completely different? Really there's no need to attack someone for playing a different style, and on that same note I apologize for the RAW enthusiasts statement. It was insulting to a specific playstyle. You play your way which I assume is the most fun for you, and we'll do it our way.

See everyone's happy. Except maybe the daemon prince who now has an identity crisis.

You may think you WOULD be, but nothing indicates yuo MUST be. "Prince" being an honorific makes no requirements on the thing you are prince of - a human prince can be a donkey, as long as it was given the title of prince over humans, it would be Donkey, Human Prince.

Apologies if that is still unclear, not sure how else to put it.

Can a space marine scout have the scout rule?

No idea where this came from but... no.
They do have scouts though.

Just that if a unit name give them a rule for one unit, it should apply to all units.

Apology accepted, things get kuh-razy on the interwebs.

Here is how I'm seeing it. Let's say you have the Prince of Spain and that prince happens to be a dog. So he's the dog prince of Spain. You said you can be X Prince also written as Prince of X. That would make the dog prince the prince of dog(s). But he's the prince of Spain isn't he? So wouldn't the donkey be the donkey prince of/over humans?

In the end I rather not antagonize people even more over this so feel free to foggadaboudit and I will too.

No, hes the Spanish Prince, who is also a Dog. Same as Donkey, Human Prince.

I think the reason I'm getting tripped up is because Spain, Wales, etc are places. Daemons are a group of beings. It would be like saying he's the Spaniard Prince who is a dog. Just sounds funky. Warp Prince might sound better.

I see what you mean now. I should have known not to argue about monarchial (that even a word?) titles with someone from the UK : p

Buy the liber chaotica it explains everything.

Daemon Prince in this case may denote a chaotic-inclined human whom is close in succession to become a daemon, or next in line.

Regardless. The rules are rules. If the rules give you a list in your codex, that's the list.
It'll take something extraordinary for a separate codex to make a unit a part of a rule in a different codex - so unless the separate codex has a rule similar to the Eldar Avatar (which isn't a daemon (of chaos), but extremely similar to one), it's not a daemon as far as Daemonhunter codex is concerned. Even if it's described in the bit of fluff above a unit's statline and wargear as a daemon, it needs to actually be in the rules that it is a daemon. (Although, do note that there could exist rules which actually reference you to use fluff as part of a rules decision, so don't discount fluff as irrelevant. I'll be damned if I can point out such a case, though.)

Keep in mind that RAW (FAQ) states that a rule that references something which no longer exist, then that rule reference does nothing.

Feel free to house rule it, but this isn't the place for house rule discussions.

(As far as the fluff goes to define daemons, if I merely extrapolate on the Avatar, it seems that creatures of the warp are daemons - which would have a Daemon Prince still being non-daemonic. If Isha, a very benevolent deity, were to be reborn, she'd be a daemon, for example. The Daemon Prince isn't a daemon, though, he's a mutated human, as far as I've been lead to believe)