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.

Lol you think logical not GW just like you can get a cover save if someone lobs a bomb at you and somoene is standing inbetween you and the tank that lobed it lol, a rule is a rule that is why they are there if they dont say Daemon in the rule then they are not a daemon. And that is they way I am going to play it like I said agree to disagree and lets hope we never play against each other. But no you have to keep going lol. I should say DONT mix Logic with GW rules lol.

Obvious Troll, is obvious.

A Bloodletter is a Daemon. End of discussion.

iproxtaco wrote:Obvious Troll, is obvious.

A Bloodletter is a Daemon. End of discussion.

I am sorry you are troll, you must not understand the term lol, a bloodletter is not a summoned daemon in the CSM, it could be a type of daemon if it was then I would insist that it had the same stats and special rules of a bloodletter, if you have not noticed that is why they split the codex's who is the Obvious Troll lol. YOU state that a bloodletter is a Daemon you are correct but its not a summoned lesser daemon lol. Ugh read your codex please.
I could also argue that in the Summoned lesser Daemon they show a artist rendition of the new Bloodletter so they had prior knowledge that they were going to change the rules, why did they not just put it in then for the sake of doing it to save arguments like this.

You think that a Bloodletter isn't a Daemon, and then spout some nonsense about 'logic isn't the same as rules'.
You=Troll.

I fail to understand how you can think that the Bloodletter isn't a Daemon. It is. Everyone else but you thinks it is.

Once more, a Bloodletter is a Daemon. Whether the CSM Summoned Daemons fall under the Preferred Enemy special rule is debatable, due to a lack of any Special Rule which is present in the DoC Codex.

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

While I agree with your RaP, I think that the logic is terrible.

When people argue via fluff, blurbs, and other non-rules settings in YMDC, they are usually shut down. Hard.

RAW, this one is fuzzy. What is a Daemon is not clearly defined, beyond things in the C:CD codex. I know how I will be playing it, but RAW you cannot use the logic presented above.

Another point, the Special Rule : Daemon is not there to give clarification. It is present in order to give all units in the Daemons of Chaos Codex a blanket rule which gives them an Invulnerable Save or Ward safe if IIRC, correct me if I'm wrong about the effect.

It's purpose is not to define what a Daemon is, nor does the Grey Knights codex define what comes under the rule.

iproxtaco wrote:You think that a Bloodletter isn't a Daemon, and then spout some nonsense about 'logic isn't the same as rules'.
You=Troll.

I fail to understand how you can think that the Bloodletter isn't a Daemon. It is. Everyone else but you thinks it is.

Once more, a Bloodletter is a Daemon. Whether the CSM Summoned Daemons fall under the Preferred Enemy special rule is debatable, due to a lack of any Special Rule which is present in the DoC Codex.

Another point, the Special Rule : Daemon is not there to give clarification. It is present in order to give all units in the Daemons of Chaos Codex a blanket rule which gives them an Invulnerable Save or Ward safe if IIRC, correct me if I'm wrong about the effect.

Maybe I fail to see bloodletter is a lesser daemon in the CSM if it was and it had the daemon rule I would agree but its not and it does not so I disagree. Sorry man the logic is that sometimes GW rules do not make since but they are the rules and you have to follow them.

If it was only in the daemons codex I would agree 100% but since its in the eldar codes I can not agree with you.

But there is no rule to define a Daemon, it's down to common sense and descriptions in certain cases.

A Bloodletter in the CSM codex is a Daemon. That is what kind of entity it is.

iproxtaco wrote:But there is no rule to define a Daemon, it's down to common sense. A Bloodletter in the CSM codex is a Daemon

There is no bloodletters in the CSM's lol there is just lesser daemons, you have to get that in your head.

And a Bloodletter is a lesser Daemon. In the title of the unit it confirms what they are.

iproxtaco wrote:And a Bloodletter is a lesser Daemon. In the title of the unit it confirms what they are.

Ok so rapters define what they are? I am sorry it does not work that way, there is nothing in the rules that say I have to take bloodletters as lesser daemons, or any other model at that point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is no agueing with you, you really need to read your codex, as I have stated many times now lets agree to disagree and vow never to face each other in battle lol.

Specifically the title of 'Lesser Daemon' confirms that they are Daemons. A raptor is what the unit its, jump infantry named 'Raptors', so yes, it does actually.
Of course, you don't have to take Bloodletters, at no point have I said that. A Bloodletter is a lesser Daemon, so you could take it, or a random blob, but it would still be a Daemon.

...in the Chaos Daemons codex it states that. Not in C: CSM

A Daemon Prince is not necessarily a Daemon., GT. We've been through thtis. Fluff wise they vary between a mutated human, given daemonic power (Storm of Iron) to a Daemon taking over a mortals body (Soul Hunter and Blood Reaver) - so, fluff wise, your argument is horrifically fuzzy.

Re: Avatar - or it is evidence that you NEED a special rule in order to be classified as a Daemon. Your argument fails on a point of logic....

Your argument that the name defines the object is even WORSE - Assaul;t Cannons are now assault? Heavy Flamers are heavy? A Daemon Hunter is a daemonic hunter?

As a GK player I would always take the safe, non-exploitative route, and simply follow the rules - and go for the Avatar and C : D only. WHen playing as Chaos I would let a GK player reroll against my daemon princes.

iproxtaco wrote:Specifically the title of 'Lesser Daemon' confirms that they are Daemons. A raptor is what the unit its, jump infantry named 'Raptors', so yes, it does actually.
Of course, you don't have to take Bloodletters, at no point have I said that. A Bloodletter is a lesser Daemon, so you could take it, or a random blob, but it would still be a Daemon.

Your whole argument was if you take a bloodletter in CSM its a daemon so it must be a daemon lol. Please stop you are just making yourself look worse, its a daemon only if it has the special rule END OF STORY lol. As stated in the Eladar codex 11 months before the CSM and in the Daemons codex after.

The requirement for the rule "daemon" to be there is purely a player made requirement.

I've actually provided a rules quote for this in the INAT thread, but if you look on page 61 of the CSM codex, the summoning rules specifically refer to the Greater and Lesser Daemons as, well, Daemons.

EDIT: Copying over the rules quote:

Units of Daemons always start the game in Reserve, even in Missions that do not normally allow the Reserves rule to be used. When a Daemon unit becomes available from Reserve, it must be deployed as detailed below.

Once Deployed, the Daemons cannot do anything else in that turn's Movement phase, but after that they are free to act as normal (they can Assault in the same turn that they enter the game).

nosferatu1001 wrote:...in the Chaos Daemons codex it states that. Not in C: CSM

States what? A Lesser Daemon is by it's title and then it's description, a Daemon.

A Daemon Prince is not necessarily a Daemon., GT. We've been through thtis. Fluff wise they vary between a mutated human, given daemonic power (Storm of Iron) to a Daemon taking over a mortals body (Soul Hunter and Blood Reaver) - so, fluff wise, your argument is horrifically fuzzy.

Yes, it is debatable, in fluff. What is the unit that is 'The Daemon Prince.'? A Chaos Champion granted Daemonhood by the Chaos Gods. Daemonhood. As in, transformed into a Daemon.

Re: Avatar - or it is evidence that you NEED a special rule in order to be classified as a Daemon. Your argument fails on a point of logic....

Nah it's not though. The Avatar doesn't have the same special rule as those in the Daemons of Chaos Codex. A Bloodletter was always going to be a Daemon, regardless of special rule.

Your argument that the name defines the object is even WORSE - Assaul;t Cannons are now assault? Heavy Flamers are heavy? A Daemon Hunter is a daemonic hunter?

That's only if you take the name literally. Assault is not a noun for an entity on it's own. Heavy Flamers actually are heavy, the name Heavy Flamer suggests a large flamethrower. A Daemon Hunter hunts Daemons, oddly enough.

As a GK player I would always take the safe, non-exploitative route, and simply follow the rules - and go for the Avatar and C : D only. WHen playing as Chaos I would let a GK player reroll against my daemon princes.

I'm also a Grey Knights player. I follow the rule. The Preferred Enemy rule does not state that Daemons are defined by having a Special Rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dr_Chin wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:Specifically the title of 'Lesser Daemon' confirms that they are Daemons. A raptor is what the unit its, jump infantry named 'Raptors', so yes, it does actually.
Of course, you don't have to take Bloodletters, at no point have I said that. A Bloodletter is a lesser Daemon, so you could take it, or a random blob, but it would still be a Daemon.

Your whole argument was if you take a bloodletter in CSM its a daemon so it must be a daemon lol. Please stop you are just making yourself look worse, its a daemon only if it has the special rule END OF STORY lol. As stated in the Eladar codex 11 months before the CSM and in the Daemons codex after.

My argument is that, a Lesser Daemon in the CSM codex, just by name, is a Daemon. A Bloodletter is a Lesser Daemon, a Bloodthirster is a Greater Daemon. Both are Daemons.
Right, so if the Bloodletter in the Chaos Daemons book didn't have the Special Rule which isn't there to define what a Daemon is anyway, it wouldn't be a Daemon? FAIL LOGIC.

Iprox - wrong way round. In the C : D book blood letters are stated to be lesser daemons.

Secondly - you do realise you used fluff to define a Daemon Prince as a daemon? Also, as pointed out - the fluff is contradictory. At points they are a mortal granted daemonic powers, at others times a daemon permanently inhabiting a (mutated, warped) mortals body.

You seem to draw an arbitrary distinction between codex fluff (which is even then contradictory...) and fluff from other sources, and pretend only one is important. Using fluff to justify rules is ALWAYS a bad idea, yet you not only do that but you then only look at one side. Crazy.

Re Avatar: right, I will try this again. It is evidence you need A special rule to be classified as a daemon. It is NOT evidence you are just a daemon unless classified otherwise, that is terribad as an argument (GTs argument that the "positive" side had proven thheir argument by absence of evidence)

Heavy flamers actually are ASsault, same as normal flamers. GTs argument is that the name defines the object - which is patently false. You have no actual contra to this, as none is possible.

The preferred enemy rule only tells you that it affects Daemons. Without any further guidance the SAFEST, least likely to be exploitative route is to take the least powerful interpretation. This is common to rules which are not well defdined, by the way.

We're going to lock this for a wee while, let some people cool off/down. With a bit of luck we can re open it later once people are capable of being somewhat more polite towards each other.

.. it's toy soldiers people, stay groovy.

nobody wrote:The requirement for the rule "daemon" to be there is purely a player made requirement.

Yes but in the absence of an FAQ, there is literally no way for us to know what is and what is not a Daemon.

Defining it by what has the Daemon rule is the tidiest definition we have.

All other definitions are messier.
Going by fluff then you can justify Defilers, Possessed, Mandrakes, etc. all being affected by this rule.
Going by name is just ridiculous and has similar problems as mentioned above.

That being said, I would still count Lesser Daemons and Greater Deamons as Daemon.
On P61 of the CSM book it states that Units of Daemons start in Reserve and then goes on to refer to Greater and Lesser Daemons.
If Daemon Princes were Daemons, then they would have been included in this list.

In the fluff Daemon Princes can be described as
Mortals, with many Daemonic Gifts
As half mortal and half daemon.
And as fully Daemon as well.

Even if we split the difference and go half mortal and half daemon, GK will not get their bonus as it only works on Daemons.
E.g. If you had a sword of horse-decapitation, it wouldn't give you a bonus vs Mules.

Haven't seen circular argument ridiculousness like this in a while.

Looking forward to the FAQ.

I really don't get how someone could say that a Daemon Prince/bloodletter/bloodcrusher isn't a Daemon.

The GK preferred enemy doesn't say "Preferred Enemy: Models with 'daemon' special rule", it just says Daemons.

Can you say with a straight face, "No, my Daemon Prince is in fact, not a Daemon."

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:

nobody wrote:The requirement for the rule "daemon" to be there is purely a player made requirement.

Yes but in the absence of an FAQ, there is literally no way for us to know what is and what is not a Daemon.

Defining it by what has the Daemon rule is the tidiest definition we have.

All other definitions are messier.
Going by fluff then you can justify Defilers, Possessed, Mandrakes, etc. all being affected by this rule.
Going by name is just ridiculous and has similar problems as mentioned above.

That being said, I would still count Lesser Daemons and Greater Deamons as Daemon.
On P61 of the CSM book it states that Units of Daemons start in Reserve and then goes on to refer to Greater and Lesser Daemons.
If Daemon Princes were Daemons, then they would have been included in this list.

In the fluff Daemon Princes can be described as
Mortals, with many Daemonic Gifts
As half mortal and half daemon.
And as fully Daemon as well.

Even if we split the difference and go half mortal and half daemon, GK will not get their bonus as it only works on Daemons.
E.g. If you had a sword of horse-decapitation, it wouldn't give you a bonus vs Mules.

My post primarily dealt with Lesser and Greater Daemons (specifically, the rules quote).

As to the meat of your post, the problem with relying on a "daemon" rule is that it sets a precident as to how you determine Preferred Enemy. For example, if you follow that then how does Preferred Enemy: Orks work? Is Vect's rule that gives him Preferred Enemy: Eldar and Preferred Enemy: Dark Eldar completely worthless now because there is no unit with the rule "Dark Eldar" or "Eldar?" The method I've always relied on is what do the units' rules say? Does it refer to it as a Daemon/Eldar/Ork? If so, it counts.

The Avatar had the Daemon rule for one reason only: The codex came out after the Daemonhunters codex and all of the gnashing of teeth over people finding out that a different codex was dictating new rules about their army. This way the Eldar codex had control over the fact that the Avatar was a Daemon and is affected by Daemon-specific rules.

The fact that the newer CSM codex didn't include a clear statement on what is/isn't a Daemon is, IMO, a failing of that codex, as it seems that Daemon Princes, Possessed, Defilers, and other Daemonically Possessed vehicles are no longer considered Daemons. Which, honestly, doesn't really bug me that much gameplay wise.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Can you say with a straight face, "No, my Daemon Prince is in fact, not a Daemon."

Yes actually.

Daemon Princes are weaksauce and need all the help they can get anyway.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Looking forward to the FAQ.

Its the only way this debate will be settled.
I'd be able to live with either ruling.

Yes. Daemon Princes in the C: CSM codex are not daemons - they have daemonic powers, but are not themselves daemons.

iproxtaco wrote:
A Bloodletter is a Daemon. End of discussion.

wat? Yea, sure. The only place where a "bloodletter" is found is in C:CD, where it is defined in that codex as a lesser daemon.

There are lesser daemons in the CSM codex, but they have nothing in common with a blood letter, CSM LD can assault after DS, they lack power weapons, and they lack frumious charge... and they lack the "daemon special rule". These all make them quite different from blood letters.

So I really fail to see how this argument works at all, because these are totally different units, which do totally different things, and are in totally different codexes. Its been said a million times that you can't just go about willy nilly using inherently contradictory fluff to make rules determinations...

I have no doubt that the FAQ will rule in favor of the GKs, but for the time being RAW, there is no rules justification for stuff in the CSM codex to be considered Daemons for the purposes in the GK codex.

As for telling you with a straight face that the DP isn't a daemon...
Its not too hard when the chaos player is already dealing with s8 autocannons, and s5 storm bolters, and I6 power weapons, and GK tanks all ignore shaken and stunned (most of the time), then to add insult to injury you are saying that GK should get re rolls against CSM's only good HQ while you're at it...

Let C:CSM have their peace. The FAQ will rule against them because it is GW policy to always rule in favor of Imperium when making an FAQ, so let them have their moment in the sun.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes. Daemon Princes in the C: CSM codex are not daemons - they have daemonic powers, but are not themselves daemons.

/facepalm

Whatever you say guys. I mean, its fine if you want to say "since my old rules codex Daemon Prince is terrible, how about you let me get away with your guys not having preferred enemy against him?" That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Rather than, "no, my Daemon Prince isn't a Daemon, even though his body is clearly covered in daemonflesh, and in the fluff, a Daemon Prince is at the very height of Daemonhood, but he is not a Daemon. Nope. Definitely not a Daemon."

Circular argument is circular.

daedalus-templarius wrote: and in the fluff, a Daemon Prince is at the very height of Daemonhood

and herein lies the rub. You can't use fluff to make rules determinations... So its not circular at all, because you need to take the fluff bit out of your argument because it has no place in this forum. Its merely saying that by the rules, these units in CSM dex are not Daemons. Because their name, and their fluff is irrelevant to a debate about the rules.

Assault Cannons are not Assault Weapons
Heavy Flamers are not Heavy Weapons
Chaos Raptors are not Birds of Prey nor are they the most dangerous dinosaur in Jurassic Park.
Striking Scorpions are not Insects (er Arachnids)
Tyranid Gargoyles are not stone statutes on gothic buildings

you get the idea.

I mean, if a codex had a Preferred Enemy: Arachnids, would you say they should get re rolls against Striking Scorpions and Warp Spiders- Because of their names?
Thats what the argument for PE against Lesser and Greater Daemons in the CSM Dex looks like to me.

You can't make a ruling on the basis that the name includes a word because the English language is too inconsistent to make those sorts of rulings. Specifically, we have at least four different things that all follow the Daemon <noun> pattern, but some we know are definitely not Daemons.

Daemon Prince, Daemon Hammer, Daemon Weapon and Daemon Host.

One is a hammer used on Daemons, but is definitely not a Daemon itself. If we want to look at other instances, Codex: Grey Knights replaces a codex called Daemonhunters. It's name includes the word Daemon, so they must be hunters who are Daemons. Except that we know they weren't, they were hunters what hunt Daemons.

Greater and Lesser Summoned Daemons have rules that indicate they are Daemons. Specifically the rules for summoning them consistently refer to them as "units of Daemons". CSM Daemon Princes have no rules to indicate, only the name and fluff which gives a 50/50 chance they were Daemons who are princes or Lords who were elevated to be a prince of Daemons but may or may not be an actual Daemon.

And anyway, being a Daemon Prince isn't the height of Daemonhood. It's the best a Mortal is going to get, but the Greater Daemons are still ranked higher among Daemons even if they can't manifest in the mortal plane as easily.

akaean wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:
A Bloodletter is a Daemon. End of discussion.

wat? Yea, sure. The only place where a "bloodletter" is found is in C:CD, where it is defined in that codex as a lesser daemon.

There are lesser daemons in the CSM codex, but they have nothing in common with a blood letter, CSM LD can assault after DS, they lack power weapons, and they lack frumious charge... and they lack the "daemon special rule". These all make them quite different from blood letters.

So I really fail to see how this argument works at all, because these are totally different units, which do totally different things, and are in totally different codexes. Its been said a million times that you can't just go about willy nilly using inherently contradictory fluff to make rules determinations...

I have no doubt that the FAQ will rule in favor of the GKs, but for the time being RAW, there is no rules justification for stuff in the CSM codex to be considered Daemons for the purposes in the GK codex.

As for telling you with a straight face that the DP isn't a daemon...
Its not too hard when the chaos player is already dealing with s8 autocannons, and s5 storm bolters, and I6 power weapons, and GK tanks all ignore shaken and stunned (most of the time), then to add insult to injury you are saying that GK should get re rolls against CSM's only good HQ while you're at it...

Let C:CSM have their peace. The FAQ will rule against them because it is GW policy to always rule in favor of Imperium when making an FAQ, so let them have their moment in the sun.

Please read the rules quote I provided above. Their own rules state they are daemons. Daemon Princes are currently off-limits, but Greater and Lesser Daemons do have a rules basis for being considered Daemons.

I still say that Deamon Princes are Deamons.


I mean, why not call them ascended mortals if they arn't actually deamons.


the process of someone becoming a deamon prince is called ascending to Deamonhood. it seems to indicate that they are deamons.


this is a fluff argument, but its really all we have here.


we can't simply say its "Things with the Deamon special rule" because that leaves out the Avatar(who would only qualify because it has a special blurb that its actually a deamon)


all we have is fluff arguments. on occasions, we need to use our common sense and expand some of the fluff to actually carry some weight in rule interpertations.


is it a Deamon?

well, its fluff indicates that it is, so it must be.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes. Daemon Princes in the C: CSM codex are not daemons - they have daemonic powers, but are not themselves daemons.

/facepalm

Whatever you say guys. I mean, its fine if you want to say "since my old rules codex Daemon Prince is terrible, how about you let me get away with your guys not having preferred enemy against him?" That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Rather than, "no, my Daemon Prince isn't a Daemon, even though his body is clearly covered in daemonflesh, and in the fluff, a Daemon Prince is at the very height of Daemonhood, but he is not a Daemon. Nope. Definitely not a Daemon."

Circular argument is circular.

Daedalus - stating, baldly, that people have ulterior motives is not being polite. i am BOTH A Chaos and GK player, and I'm playing the rules - if you have a rule stating you are a daemon, you are a daemon.

What does daemonhood mean? Oh wait!" IT means you were a normal mortal who has gained incredible daemon-like powers! Are you unstable, like daemons are known to be? No. Do you require someone to summon you to battle, like all daemons? ......erm, no!

Daemon princes in the chaos marine codex are NOT daemons, no matter how much you wish they were. They are the closest a mortal can get to being a daemon, but almost is not is.

You also fail at using fluff (and ignoring fluff you dont like) to justify an argument.