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.

So what you are saying if you are playing another GK with a daemon weapon you get a bonus against him? or just his weapon?

How about any CSM with a deamon weapon? do you get a bonus against them? or a vehicle that has daemonic possession? Where does the rule end?

Dr_Chin wrote:So what you are saying if you are playing another GK with a daemon wepon you get a bonus agianst him? or just his weapon?

No, because the character isn't a Daemon. The rule says all 'Daemons'. Daemon Princes, summoned or in a CM army are still Daemons, therefore The Grey Knights get their preferred enemy bonus against them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dr_Chin wrote:
How about any CSM with a deamon weapon? do you get a bonus against them? or a vehicle that has daemonic possession? Where does the rule end?

Nope, the character is again, not a Daemon. The vehicle with Daemonic Possession is debatable, but I would say it does, simply because the Daemon is 'within' the target. It would apply to Possessed Chaos Space Marines as well. It's just my personal opinion on the matter, it'll likely be cleared up in the FAQ.

Just another issue to be FAQed.

As previously posted, Preferred Enemy typically applies against an entire codex. So by that I think that it should apply to Codex: Daemons of Chaos - as well as any models noted to be a 'Daemon', like the Avatar.

A note to everyone:
Don't assume that you're correct. Ever. You can make a pretty good argument and hope that people accept your conclusions, but ultimately this forum is here to help people decide which rules they want to use - not to insult, denegrate, or bully anyone. Trolling, hostile attitudes, and the like add nothing to any argument.

I could argue this all day, but I am not going to I think all CSM players should suffer just because GW cannot write a codex correctly please. The problem is, that if it’s a daemon then say it is, All Daemons in the chaos codex has the Daemon special rule, the as does the Avatar so those you should get preferred enemy, nothing more until GW Faq’s it why would they have that rule unless it was to specify what is a daemon it seems clear it me, it must be that Grey knights need more help or is that it’s made so any noob and win and feel good about themselves. GW should have clearly stated All daemons in CSM codex are considered preferred enemy then list them. But no GW loves this crap typical GW.

Dr_Chin wrote:It’s called codex creep deal with it GK's if it does not have the special rule of Daemon you don’t get the bonuses, quit whining about your over powered codex. (I knew space marines where babies but sheesh)

Can we avoid comments like this please, they don't add anything constructive to any debate and only annoy or infuriate people and lead to a general debasement of the thread.. Much obliged.

For the last time, the Preferred Enemy: Deamons special rule does not say they get it against things with the Deamon special rule.

it just says they get it against Deamons.


the Avatar is a Deamon

things in the Deamon Codex are Deamons

Deamon Princes are Deamons

Summoned Deamons are Deamons


posessed vehicles, maybe...





because Deamon Princes and Summoned Deamons are Deamons on all accounts we must assume that they count as deamons for the purpose of the Preferred enemy.

the burden is on the negative to prove they are not deamons.

The problem is I think this is very relevant subject I saw a fist fight almost break out at a tournament over this rule I know everyone should have fun, and that is what I told them just relax etc.. but what is the ruling I play daemons I understand I am getting screwed by GK I am ok with it, but when I see a noob playing GK and a seasoned CSM player argue about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:For the last time, the Preferred Enemy: Deamons special rule does not say they get it against things with the Deamon special rule.

it just says they get it against Deamons.


the Avatar is a Deamon

things in the Deamon Codex are Deamons

Deamon Princes are Deamons

Summoned Deamons are Deamons


posessed vehicles, maybe...





because Deamon Princes and Summoned Deamons are Deamons on all accounts we must assume that they count as deamons for the purpose of the Preferred enemy.

the burden is on the negative to prove they are not deamons.

Then why did they make the special rule of daemon?

Why? To give the Daemons a special rule. The Grey Knights were not taken into consideration, not they should have been. It's down to inconsistency between authors more than anything else.

It really isn't that much of a big deal.
Firstly, how many Daemons are there likely to be in a CM army?
Secondly, how often are the dwindling CM players going to face the Grey Knights?
Thirdly, it fits entirely with established fluff.
Should CM players technically be given an advantage over the Daemons of Chaos book against Grey Knights when they're using the same units?

Xarian wrote:Just another issue to be FAQed.

As previously posted, Preferred Enemy typically applies against an entire codex. So by that I think that it should apply to Codex: Daemons of Chaos - as well as any models noted to be a 'Daemon', like the Avatar.

A note to everyone:
Don't assume that you're correct. Ever. You can make a pretty good argument and hope that people accept your conclusions, but ultimately this forum is here to help people decide which rules they want to use - not to insult, denegrate, or bully anyone. Trolling, hostile attitudes, and the like add nothing to any argument.

I agree but what do we do in the mean time?

they were being lazy.

it was so they could give a blanket Eternal warrior and 5+ ward save accross the codex.

Grey Templar wrote:they were being lazy.

it was so they could give a blanket Eternal warrior and 5+ ward save accross the codex.

Not all daemons have a 5+ save also the avitar does not have Eternal warrior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Listen I get it (hard or soft unless its american its cheese) but I have been playing GW products for way too long I guess my b**ch is for them, they just cant seem to get this stuff correct ever, and there has been and always be rules like this.

Dr_Chin wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:they were being lazy.

it was so they could give a blanket Eternal warrior and 5+ ward save accross the codex.

Not all daemons have a 5+ save also the avitar does not have Eternal warrior.

Eh? Avatar? Is the Avatar in the Daemons of Chaos Codex? Not the last time I looked in it. You were both talking about the C: DOC, the Avatar, whose rules were published a while before this codex, does not come into the conversation.

iproxtaco wrote:Eh? Avatar? Is the Avatar in the Daemons of Chaos Codex? Not the last time I looked in it. You were both talking about the C: DOC, the Avatar, whose rules were published a while before this codex, does not come into the conversation.

Really? SO you are saying that the Avatar is not affected? Really?

Anyway the codex for Eldar was released in November 2006 which has the daemon special rule and the CSM was September 2007 Which does not? Hmmmmmm

Why would it not be? According to you, only units with the Daemon Special Rule should be affected. I was under the opinion that we were talking about the Daemons of Chaos book.

iproxtaco wrote:Why would it not be? According to you, only units with the Daemon Special Rule should be affected. I was under the opinion that we were talking about the Daemons of Chaos book.

Yeah ok read the codex please before posting.
I see you are a recent convert, you switch from Daemons to GK's lol how is the weather there? lol.

Read what codex?

What's your point? I play Word Bearers, Tyranids, some Dark Eldar, several other Marine armies and of course Grey Knights.
If the rule swings towards affecting all Daemons, then I would then be at a disadvantage with my Word Bearers.

iproxtaco wrote:Read what codex?

Please read page 24 of the eldar codex

So are possesed CSM daemon's or are they daemonkin?

Where it says The Avatar is a Daemon for all purposes? Didn't have to if that's what you mean. I know that. I posted as such. I was under the impression that we were talking about the Daemons of Chaos Codex in which the Special Rule : Daemon is used.
Please read my posts before replying.

the Eldar codex specifically mentions that it is a deamon for all purposes.


it doesn't have the Deamon special rule, but it is a deamon.


proof that you don't have to have the Deamon special rule to be a deamon.

Sorry my friend but I assume the thread was never about Daemons of Chaos codex, its about what is and what is not a "daemon" if they used the rule "Daemon" in November 2006 (Eldar) why would they not use it in September 2007 (CSM) to specify clearly what is and what is not? The fact that ALL daemons in the Daemons of Chaos book are called daemons was never in question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:the Eldar codex specifically mentions that it is a deamon for all purposes.


it doesn't have the Deamon special rule, but it is a deamon.


proof that you don't have to have the Deamon special rule to be a deamon.

Its a rule for the Avatar and its a special rule soo I think that it’s the exact opposite of that, they specified it, saying it’s a daemon for a reason, because it is one, maybe I could be wrong but why would GW do it then?

The thread is not solely about it, but I was under the assumption that the short discussion that occurred was about that Codex specifically.

GW is not a single entity which writes the Codex with complete consideration of every rule in every other book, although perhaps it should as far as possible. The separate authors obviously wrote the rules internally without considering the other rules.

- The Avatar is stated as a Daemon for all purposes in the Eldar Codex, 2006.
- The CSM Codex contains summoned Daemons which aren't specifically stated as being 'Daemons' with a rule. The DoC book comes along and this author gives all the units a Special Rule, and labels them as Daemons within this rule.
- The Grey Knights book is written with the Preferred Enemy Rule, stating an effect on 'Daemons'.

It comes down to whether you only use rules which specifically state each unit as a Daemon, which would be everything in the Daemons of Chaos book and the avatar, or if you use common sense and include everything that is a Daemon, which would also include the Summoned units in the CSM codex.

Common sense to a GK player may not be Common sense to a chaos player thus where the argument incuse. So if all things with Daemon in the name are then “Daemons” then defilers are not? How about possessed? How about Chaos Sorcerers? in the fluff they make pacts with Daemons and have the essence of Daemons. Oblits?

Right, so a summoned Daemon is not a Daemon? Where's the logic behind that? The summoned Daemons in the CSM codex are Daemons, whether they fall under the preferred enemy special rule is up for debate, not their status.
I never said everything with 'Daemon' in the name. Units like possessed and defilers are debatable on their status. In MY opinion, they contain a Daemon inside them, controlling them, granting them power from within, so the rule would apply.
Also, making a pact with a Daemon is different from possession, unless the pact involves the Daemon possessing the invoker of the pact which is not common.

I am sorry man, I just dont understand your logic then, according to the GW and daemon special rule NO according to fluff yes. Like I stated this is typical GW pitting one type of player against another. The question is how do we solve it, in a worthless internet poll? lol in my thinking everything that does not have Daemon as a rule is debatable that is why we are here talking about it right? If it was clear there would be no argument right?

How can you not understand? A summoned Daemon is a Daemon in name, description, in the fluff, the fact that it's a warp spawned entity associated with a Chaos god and in model. IT IS A DAEMON. There is no debate about it. Whether the summoned Daemon is affected by the Preferred Enemy Rule is down to personal opinion. IMO it is, in yours, it isn't. Any poll is useless. The only thing that will clear this up once and for all in an FAQ.

the reason summoned deamons and Deamon princes weren't given specific rules associated with deamons is because the Deamon Hunter codex actually said what were deamons and what weren't for the purposes of certain items of Wargear(preferred enemy didn't exist at the time of that codexs writing)


at the time the CSM, Deamon, and Eldar codex were written, there was no need to debate this issue. the DH codex defined what were deamons and what weren't.


at the time the list was

Everything in the Deamon Codex,

Deamon princes,

Summoned Deamons,

Lesser Deamons,

the Avatar,

Chaos Lords with 50+ points of deamonic gifts,

and any vehicles with the Deamonic Posession upgrade.




we have no current definition of Deamon(and the Deamon special rule is NOT a good bar)


Deamon Princes and Summoned Deamons were deamons with the old DH codex and they still are with the GK codex.

So according to your logic, and I have the CSM codex in front of me, most CSM is a daemon lol read the fluff. This is why the rule needs to be clear. I do hope a FAQ will clear this up but some how I dont think it will, and this still will go on. I will agree to disagree with you and lets hope we never have to battle ok.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:the reason summoned deamons and Deamon princes weren't given specific rules associated with deamons is because the Deamon Hunter codex actually said what were deamons and what weren't for the purposes of certain items of Wargear(preferred enemy didn't exist at the time of that codexs writing)


at the time the CSM, Deamon, and Eldar codex were written, there was no need to debate this issue. the DH codex defined what were deamons and what weren't.


at the time the list was

Everything in the Deamon Codex,

Deamon princes,

Summoned Deamons,

Lesser Deamons,

the Avatar,

Chaos Lords with 50+ points of deamonic gifts,

and any vehicles with the Deamonic Posession upgrade.




we have no current definition of Deamon(and the Deamon special rule is NOT a good bar)


Deamon Princes and Summoned Deamons were deamons with the old DH codex and they still are with the GK codex.

You are correct in the OLD DH codex but this is the new DH codex, and if it stated that I would agree 100% with you but it does not, so I can not I am sorry. I understand this will be a debate for a long time till a GW tell us what it is untill then we will disagree. All because there exists the special rule of Daemon, if GW did not make that rule then I would agree with you but since they did I do not.

Actually......No, not in any way. A Daemon is a Daemon because it's stated as and modeled to be a Daemon. A Bloodletter is a Daemon in the CSM codex and in the DoC codex. Why you would think a Bloodletter isn't a Daemon is beyond me.

iproxtaco wrote:Actually......No, not in any way. A Daemon is a Daemon because it's stated as and modeled to be a Daemon. A Bloodletter is a Daemon in the CSM codex and in the DoC codex. Why you would think a Bloodletter isn't a Daemon is beyond me.

Beacuse it does not have the deamon special rule that was introduced before that codex came out. You can not use the story of 2 seperate people wrote the codex thats like saying each person does not know the others codex, its mental, they where what 11 months apart? lol.

So, simply because it doesn't have a rule that's specific to the DoC codex, a Bloodletter is magically no longer a Daemon? Eh? It's a Daemon, there's no way you can swing this without being very wrong, and very stupid.
Again, whether it comes under the Preferred Enemy special rule is what is up for debate, not whether a Bloodletter is a Daemon, because it is.