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.

Mahtamori wrote: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.

Fluff isn't the issue here. As I pointed out earlier, at the time that the DH codex was written, 'Daemon Prince' was just the fluffy name for a Lord with certain wargear... and this was counted as a Daemon.

The issue at hand has nothing to do with fluff, and is simply the result of the Chaos Codex changing the definition of what constitutes a Daemon Prince from a Lord with gear to an actual, distinct unit type... And one that lacks a rule of it's own specifically calling it a Daemon, beyond having 'Daemon' in the name.



How you choose to address that in your games is ultimately up to you. This thread shows that there is certainly a distinct lack of concensus as to how the RAW should be applied, (or even exactly what the RAW is) which puts it firmly into the 'discuss it with your opponent if it's relevant' basket.


Time to put this one to bed, as it's all turning a little silly.