Niche Daemon Princes and Warp Bolters--can Tsons or DG take them?

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.

**Forlorn_ Hope**

The Daemon Prince index entry is still causing the occasional conflict. Can someone provide convincing precedent one way or the other that does not simply cite BattleScribe's github or similarly circular arguments? This topic seems to refuse to fade away on certain discussion boards.

**Forlorn_ Hope**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Forlorn_ Hope wrote:
As title. Can someone provide convincing precedent one way or the other that does not simply cite BattleScribe's github or similarly circular arguments?
It would help if you could explain what the actual problem is? I am just guessing here, but if you mean "Why can't my 'Daemon Prince of Nurgle' take an Index Warp Bolter from the 'Daemon Prince' datasheet as per the BRB FAQ flowchart?", it's because 'Daemon Prince of Nurgle' datasheet is not a 'Daemon Prince' datasheet so therefore does not have that option, any more than a Rhino can take the options a Rhino Primaris has access to.

Fixed title for better explanation. I'm on the no Warp Bolter side, FWIW.

**Forlorn_ Hope**

BaconCatBug wrote:
Not sure why you brought up the Github arguments, since they also say they can't take Warp Bolters (because that's what the rules actually say).

Are we reading different postings? BattleScribe refuses to correct this issue and it's leading to a fair amount of misapplication of the rules.

https://github.com/BSData/wh40k/issues/4931

**Forlorn_ Hope**

Therin lies the problem. The inconsistency through bad execution is causing contention, and the latest Designers Commentary only exacerbated the matter by bringing back bad arguments for Warp Bolters under a different light.

Are the pro-Warp Bolter crowds simply arguing in bad faith, at this point?

**Forlorn_ Hope**

It would be so nice to just get a clear statement from GW on this one. It seems obvious enough that DPoT, et al., aren't CSM Daemon Princes, yet plenty would argue otherwise.

**Forlorn_ Hope**

Octopoid wrote:
I can argue that a chair is a table and a table is a frog all I want. Doesn't make me right.

In this case, BCB is correct; a "Daemon Prince of Nurgle" is not a "Daemon Prince."

We might need to hold an intervention for some of the Thousand Sons players that pretend they are authorities on rules interpretations, then.

**Forlorn_ Hope**

DeathReaper wrote:

Except that, if "all these datasheets are all considered to be the same."

...for the purpose of Organized Events guidelines.

Take care not to use rules quotes without full context.

[So many edits for formatting. I need to get better at hitting "Preview" first...]

**Forlorn_ Hope**

UPDATE!: Looks like BattleScribe finally added a separate "Daemon Prince [INDEX]" entry under Thousand Sons HQs.

That means it's finally an "official" ruling now. Right? /s