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.

 Mannahnin wrote:
As a reminder, personal criticisms leveled at other people's reading comprehension or the like are not permitted, and if you make them, you will not like the consequences.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Because that is part of the classification of a daemon weapon whereas AP2 is not. The classification of a daemon wepon is unique power weapon. Markless daemon weapon V abbadon daemon weapon is the argument, not abbadon daemon weapon V daemon weapon in general.

(In response to mann)

I still think the "instead of the usual +1 strength" clearly implies that Drach'Nyen follows the rules for the unmarked DW except where otherwise specified.

I agree, however, from a RAW standpoint, implications mean nothing. My brother currently lords over my chaos (and has been watchign over my shoulder as I argued this out) and he belives the only reason that the +1 is in his profile is becase abby has "multiple marks" of a sort. You could see where it would get confusing about what rules his daemon weapon followed.

It is implied that nemesis weapons always kill daemons no matter what but actuallity is far from it. It is implied that Gauss weapons should all be AP2 but again, the actuallity is far from it. Is the ruling convoluted and nonsensical? yes. Do I pray they will adjust the errata soon to account? yes. But how will I play it until then? Abby ap3.

I really think this one is pretty clear. Even in the RAW tenets of YMDC, we are called to look at similar and related rulings to inform the gray areas. All FAQ judgements point to Abby's sword being a Daemon weapon (since one actually says so) and another refers to "normal" usage of the rules for an unmarked DW. So it's an unmarked DW.

This isnt wishing or wanting, its reading what's written outside a vacuum. RAW =/= ignoring all context and connected rules. Those that have argued such for the last 2 months just found themselves on the wrong side of the new FAQs. No need to make the same mistakes x2.

Edited by AgeOfEgos

Just a few friendly reminders

 Lorek wrote:
Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC):

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate.

1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

As Happyjew pointed out---stating "You are wrong" and other sarcastic remarks does not advance the conversation and is against the tenets of YMDC.

This is the second warning within this thread and the last warning was only one page prior--future violations will be viewed with that in mind. Please stick to objectively discussing the rules and not attacking a poster. Thanks.

I would sadly have to agree that Abby is ap3, since the only characteristic that Daemonweapons share according to the FAQ is that they count as power weapons, are 2h weapons, grant d6 attacks and wound yourself on a 1.

After that they are divided by type/mark. The only daemon weapons that are ap2 ATM are no-mark, MoK, MoN and MoS because they had their entry altered to show this. MoT is only ap2 if it adopts the shape of a power axe (yay, i1).

Abby's weapon is a Daemonweapon, which means it follows the rules of the first entry only, meaning it follows the rules of an unusual power weapon, which means it ap3 with d6 attacks and double strength only.

If all Daemonweapons no matter mark were suppose to be ap2, then why didn't they mention it in the common description? I would love MoT weapons to be ap2 in melee, but as it stands now it's ap3.

Abby is ap3 and so is MoT

As I stated on the first page I'm of the opinion that it should be AP 2 for this reason:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Abby's rules specify that he has a DW, and that the DW gives double strength instead of the normal +1. The normal +1 is due to it being an unmarked daemon weapon. Unmarked daemon weapons are AP2.

Something a lot of people are overlooking is the last sentence of the Daemon Weapons general rules:

A Daemon Weapon:
-Has an additional ability that varies depending on the mark given to the bearer

It doesn't say that it may have or might have, a daemon weapon absolutely HAS one of those five abilities. Given that Abby's rules make reference to the unmarked weapon (and that MoCA isn't technically a Mark of Chaos as listed on page 25), it seems pretty clear that his weapon follows those rules.

You cannot infer with a permissive ruleset is the problem. I'm getting tired of giving the same argument that no one seems to be able to get around. His weapon is DIFFERENT than the unmarked weapon. I dont know how many times I've said this. Wether they wanted it to be unmarked light or not, it is a different weapon. That means it has different rules. I dont care if his rules come from being 1 weapon, or 2 weapons, or 6 weapons. If the rules have changed you dont get to apply any rule you want. If they wanted him to be AP2 they would've made him AP2 along with allof the other characters.

The rules make a clear implication that it an unmarked daemon weapon, with two additional rules- re-rolling to wound and double strength in place of +1S. There's no other purpose to the "instead of" language in his entry.

Just because it says it has something in place of something it could have does not mean it gets all of those other wounderful bonuses.

Ok, so I just started reading this thread and from what I've read I believe that the weapon is AP 2.

To start, in order to count the Daemon Weapon as AP2 it would need to be considered a "Daemon Weapons, Daemon Weapon (Lords with no Mark of Chaos)." That is the end goal of my argument, and one that I will have to prove.

So, we know that according to pg 46 that he "counts as equipped with a Daemon Weapon that doubles his Strength (to Strength 8, as shown in his profile) instead of the normal +1, and he may re-roll any failed roll to wound in close combat." I don't think anyone will argue that he is equipped with a Daemon Weapon.

The rules for a Daemon Weapon are (pg 93):

A Daemon Weapon:
* Requires two hands to use.
* Is a power weapon
* Adds an extra D6 Attacks in close combat. Roll the dice every time the model is about to attack. if the result is a 1, the bound Daemon within the weapon rebels - the model may not make any attacks in this round and suffers one wound with no armour saves allowed.
* Has an additional ability that varies depend on the Mark given to the bearer, as described below.

Now there are 5 different options. Lords with No Mark of Chaos, Lords with Mark of Khorne, Lords with Mark of Nurgle, Lords with Mark of Tzeentch, and Lords with Mark of Slaanesh.

In order to prove that he is a Lord with no Mark of Chaos, we need to ask the question, what is a Mark of Chaos? On pg 25, we have the definitions of what is a Mark of Chaos. Under there you see, there are four types of Mark of Chaos. Mark of Khorne, Mark of Tzeentch, Mark of Nurgle, and Mark of Slaanesh. So now we have that definition.

So, when we look at Abbadon's rules we ask, Does he have a Mark of Khorne, Tzeentch, Nurgle, or Slaanesh. The answer is no. He does not. He has his own special Mark that has it's own special rules, but does not count by the RAW as a Mark of Chaos. It specifically says it's a Unique Mark, and does NOT say that it counts as a Mark of Chaos. Yes, I realize the name of it contains Mark of Chaos in it, but the name does not denote it as a Mark of Chaos as described on pg 25.

The next part that we need to prove is that he is a Lord so that he qualifies for the "Lords with No Mark of Chaos". On pg 66, the book does state that "Abaddon is the heir to Horus' legacy and as Warmaster of the Black Legion is the most powerful of all Chaos Lords." In fact, the entire section is called Lords of Chaos. Seeing that you can clearly see that he is indeed a Lord. Now, I realize that this is not exactly a 'rules' page and I could understand an argument here. I will give you that, but unless we use RAI I believe that no one is a Lord considering the unit is called 'Chaos Lord', not 'Lord', but that's digressing a little.

So since he does NOT have a Mark of Chaos as described on Pg 25, and is a Lord according to pg 66. He is counted as a 'Lords with No Mark of Chaos', and therefore by the FAQ counts has getting +1S AP2 with the special rules of "Melee, Daemon Weapon, Two-Handed".

Please feel free to dissect my personal findings and how I plan to interpret them.

I use a CSM Lord with the Mark of Tzeentch and I use my Daemon Weapon as AP3.

I cannot find a reason to try to play it as AP2, and don't really mind anyways. It's for squishin' MEQs in 3+.

He is not a lord. He may be a lord in fluff but fluff has no bearing here. Unless it says in his rules entry that he is a lord, he is not for game purposes. It also says in his mark description in the rules section that he gets +1 to his invol from the MARK OF TZEENCH as well as describing what the other marks do, even if they are not listed as wargear. He is AP3 simple as that. Daemon Weapon blanket rule is AP3 unless otherwise stated and it is nto stated that he wields an AP2 weapon. It is not even stated that his weapon is that of the unmarked lord. There are similarities of course, but no Black and White print saying that it is. You cannot read in between the lines b/c thats how C'tan becom eternal warrior, necrons always pass reanimation protocols, and space marines never fail an armor save. You must read the black and white text on the rules page.

I will have to agree with Vindicare, it has been pointed out to me many times in the forum, "..permissive ruleset..." or "...if its not in the rules you can do it..." or some other type of "..no you can't do that..." because it is not in the BRB.

Reading over Abby's entry in the Codex and the FAQ and no where does it specify what kind of daemon weapon he is using aside from that it is a daemon weapon and would get the +d6 attacks and wounds himself on a roll of 1.

He is not a Chaos Lord as the Codex does not define him as one, He does however have all the Marks and as stated in the Codex, the benefits of those Marks are included in His profile.

With all that in mind, the FAQ states that a Chaos Lord with a Daemon Weapon (with No Marks of Chaos) get +1 AP2 .....

This can not apply to Abby for two reasons, 1. Abby is not a Chaos Lord as defined by his Codex and 2. He definitely has Marks of Chaos as his Codex says so.

Reading over Abby's entry in the Codex and the FAQ and no where does it specify what kind of daemon weapon he is using aside from that it is a daemon weapon and would get the +d6 attacks and wounds himself on a roll of 1.

I didn't include this in my above post, but has been mentioned before. While it does not specifically say what kind of Daemon Weapon he has, it does make references that you can infer he has the Daemon Weapon for the 'Lords with No Marks of Chaos'. It states that he gets double Strength instead of the normal +1. The only Daemon Weapon that gives +1 Strength is the one that is for 'Lords with No Marks of Chaos'. Now, as you said it's a 'permissive ruleset' and it does not specifically say that he has the the Daemon Weapon for 'Lords with No Mark of Chaos' but it's not a leap to come to that conclusion with the wording noted.

He is not a Chaos Lord as the Codex does not define him as one

I've stated before, my view on this. By RAW he is not. By RAI I believe he was meant to be.

He does however have all the Marks and as stated in the Codex, the benefits of those Marks are included in His profile.

I disagree with this part as he does not have any of the Marks. As you've stated, it does not define him as a Chaos Lord, but it also does not define him as having a Mark of Chaos. It says that he has a unique Mark that combines the gifts provided from the other Marks (which are present in his statline). So while he gets the benefits of those Marks, he does not actually have them as he has a Mark of Chaos Ascendent, not a Mark of Chaos as defined on pg 25.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
There are similarities of course, but no Black and White print saying that it is. You cannot read in between the lines b/c thats how C'tan becom eternal warrior, necrons always pass reanimation protocols, and space marines never fail an armor save. You must read the black and white text on the rules page.

Those aren't relevant comparisons. There are, what, seven possible Daemon Weapons? 5 of which are AP2, and the other 2 are conspicuously absent in the update. It looks like an error. Do you think GW doesn't make errors and oversights? For example, are you playing that you can only snapshot at even just Gliding Monstrous Creatures due to the screwup in the first entry of page 3 of the main rulebook FAQ?

 MajinMalak wrote:

Reading over Abby's entry in the Codex and the FAQ and no where does it specify what kind of daemon weapon he is using aside from that it is a daemon weapon and would get the +d6 attacks and wounds himself on a roll of 1.

I didn't include this in my above post, but has been mentioned before. While it does not specifically say what kind of Daemon Weapon he has, it does make references that you can infer he has the Daemon Weapon for the 'Lords with No Marks of Chaos'. It states that he gets double Strength instead of the normal +1. The only Daemon Weapon that gives +1 Strength is the one that is for 'Lords with No Marks of Chaos'. Now, as you said it's a 'permissive ruleset' and it does not specifically say that he has the the Daemon Weapon for 'Lords with No Mark of Chaos' but it's not a leap to come to that conclusion with the wording noted.

He is not a Chaos Lord as the Codex does not define him as one

I've stated before, my view on this. By RAW he is not. By RAI I believe he was meant to be.

He does however have all the Marks and as stated in the Codex, the benefits of those Marks are included in His profile.

I disagree with this part as he does not have any of the Marks. As you've stated, it does not define him as a Chaos Lord, but it also does not define him as having a Mark of Chaos. It says that he has a unique Mark that combines the gifts provided from the other Marks (which are present in his statline). So while he gets the benefits of those Marks, he does not actually have them as he has a Mark of Chaos Ascendent, not a Mark of Chaos as defined on pg 25.

So you can infer that he has a 'Lords with No Marks of Chaos' weapon cuz it stated the instead of +1 str, but you dont infer he has one fo the Mark of Chaos, though he has the benefits cuz he has a Mark of Chaos Ascendent. Could you not also read that meaning his weapon that EVEN though has a benefit of the 'Lords with No Marks of Chaos' could be something else that just also has that benefit with other stuff kinda like his Mark of Chaos Ascendent???

Since you can make that assumption, and you have to real rules stating it IS a 'Lords with No Marks of Chaos' you have to go with AP3.

At least thats my thoughts on it...

 MajinMalak wrote:

Reading over Abby's entry in the Codex and the FAQ and no where does it specify what kind of daemon weapon he is using aside from that it is a daemon weapon and would get the +d6 attacks and wounds himself on a roll of 1.

I didn't include this in my above post, but has been mentioned before. While it does not specifically say what kind of Daemon Weapon he has, it does make references that you can infer he has the Daemon Weapon for the 'Lords with No Marks of Chaos'. It states that he gets double Strength instead of the normal +1. The only Daemon Weapon that gives +1 Strength is the one that is for 'Lords with No Marks of Chaos'. Now, as you said it's a 'permissive ruleset' and it does not specifically say that he has the the Daemon Weapon for 'Lords with No Mark of Chaos' but it's not a leap to come to that conclusion with the wording noted.

He is not a Chaos Lord as the Codex does not define him as one

I've stated before, my view on this. By RAW he is not. By RAI I believe he was meant to be.

He does however have all the Marks and as stated in the Codex, the benefits of those Marks are included in His profile.

I disagree with this part as he does not have any of the Marks. As you've stated, it does not define him as a Chaos Lord, but it also does not define him as having a Mark of Chaos. It says that he has a unique Mark that combines the gifts provided from the other Marks (which are present in his statline). So while he gets the benefits of those Marks, he does not actually have them as he has a Mark of Chaos Ascendent, not a Mark of Chaos as defined on pg 25.

It says he has all the Mark of chaos in his Codex Entry. Under Mark of Chaos Accendant:
Abby has attained the favour of each of the Chaos powers in turn....... Over the millennia Abby has melded all of the MARKS OF CHAOS granted to him, and now bears a unqique Mark that combines all of the gifts. Because of the Mark of Tzeentch, the invul save is increased to 4+

He has all of the Marks but if you want to be specific, he at the very least has the Mark of Tzeentch as is described in his entry and has a 4+ invul because of it.

GimlisonofGloin already posted this snippet from the newest faq twice, but nobody seems to be referring to it:

Q: Is Abaddon’s Daemon Sword Drach’nyen a power weapon and, if
the D6 roll for his extra Attacks is a 1, does the weapon rebel as
described on page 93? (p46)
A: Yes to both questions.

This is on the third page in the right column and just below the blissgiver entry in the left column in black text so it doesn't really stand out.

Can somebody please tell me why this doesn't answer the questions being asked in this thread? I'm afraid I'm getting confused (not an unusual state, but...).

Thanks in advance.

The crux of this discussion is:
Is Abaddon's Daemon Weapon AP3 (as normal for an unusual Power Weapon, which it most certainly is (unusual I mean)), or is it AP2 due to him having a non-associated Dameon Weapon?

bginer wrote:
GimlisonofGloin already posted this snippet from the newest faq twice, but nobody seems to be referring to it:

Q: Is Abaddon’s Daemon Sword Drach’nyen a power weapon and, if
the D6 roll for his extra Attacks is a 1, does the weapon rebel as
described on page 93? (p46)
A: Yes to both questions.

This is on the third page in the right column and just below the blissgiver entry in the left column in black text so it doesn't really stand out.

Can somebody please tell me why this doesn't answer the questions being asked in this thread? I'm afraid I'm getting confused (not an unusual state, but...).

Thanks in advance.

Because all daemon weapons are power weapons. It is basically supporting the rule that Abaddon's sword is the generic daemon weapon, which works in exactly the same way....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

40k-noob wrote:


It says he has all the Mark of chaos in his Codex Entry. Under Mark of Chaos Accendant:
Abby has attained the favour of each of the Chaos powers in turn....... Over the millennia Abby has melded all of the MARKS OF CHAOS granted to him, and now bears a unqique Mark that combines all of the gifts. Because of the Mark of Tzeentch, the invul save is increased to 4+

He has all of the Marks but if you want to be specific, he at the very least has the Mark of Tzeentch as is described in his entry and has a 4+ invul because of it.

He has all the marks but because of this he has the chaos undivided daemon weapon, which is the same one you get for having no marks. Abaddon is the chaos undivided special character.

@Happyjew and Kevlar - Then if it's a power weapon/sword, and unusual, then that makes it AP3 correct?

Or am I being dense?

Kevlar wrote:

bginer wrote:
GimlisonofGloin already posted this snippet from the newest faq twice, but nobody seems to be referring to it:

Q: Is Abaddon’s Daemon Sword Drach’nyen a power weapon and, if
the D6 roll for his extra Attacks is a 1, does the weapon rebel as
described on page 93? (p46)
A: Yes to both questions.

This is on the third page in the right column and just below the blissgiver entry in the left column in black text so it doesn't really stand out.

Can somebody please tell me why this doesn't answer the questions being asked in this thread? I'm afraid I'm getting confused (not an unusual state, but...).

Thanks in advance.

Because all daemon weapons are power weapons. It is basically supporting the rule that Abaddon's sword is the generic daemon weapon, which works in exactly the same way....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

40k-noob wrote:


It says he has all the Mark of chaos in his Codex Entry. Under Mark of Chaos Accendant:
Abby has attained the favour of each of the Chaos powers in turn....... Over the millennia Abby has melded all of the MARKS OF CHAOS granted to him, and now bears a unqique Mark that combines all of the gifts. Because of the Mark of Tzeentch, the invul save is increased to 4+

He has all of the Marks but if you want to be specific, he at the very least has the Mark of Tzeentch as is described in his entry and has a 4+ invul because of it.

He has all the marks but because of this he has the chaos undivided daemon weapon, which is the same one you get for having no marks. Abaddon is the chaos undivided special character.

Sorry but i am truly in disbelief. Are you saying that having ALL the Marks is the same as having NO Marks?!?

bginer wrote:
@Happyjew and Kevlar - Then if it's a power weapon/sword, and unusual, then that makes it AP3 correct?

Or am I being dense?

No clue. I have no part in this one, and, IMO, both sides have valid arguments. Personally I think it is something that needs an actual Errata and given an actual statline (like so many of these odd weapons).

Happyjew wrote:

bginer wrote:
@Happyjew and Kevlar - Then if it's a power weapon/sword, and unusual, then that makes it AP3 correct?

Or am I being dense?

No clue. I have no part in this one, and, IMO, both sides have valid arguments. Personally I think it is something that needs an actual Errata and given an actual statline (like so many of these odd weapons).

Heh, then I shall take my self to the sideline and watch with interest.

Thanks.

40k-noob wrote:

Sorry but i am truly in disbelief. Are you saying that having ALL the Marks is the same as having NO Marks?!?

When it comes to his daemon weapon that is exactly what it means.

Disbelieve all you want, the issue will be clearly resolved by the end of the month.

And until it has been said that having all the marks= having none of the marks, he has his own special daemon weapons that follow his daemon weapon rules and the blanket daemon weapon rules alone. You cannot infer a rule, especially with a permissive ruleset. Inference is not a valid argument.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
And until it has been said that having all the marks= having none of the marks, he has his own special daemon weapons that follow his daemon weapon rules and the blanket daemon weapon rules alone. You cannot infer a rule, especially with a permissive ruleset. Inference is not a valid argument.

Funny you say that because that is exactly what you are doing yourself.

It is clear from the Codex that Abaddon has a Daemon Weapon with additional rules. Instead of +1 STR it is double STR. Besides that it functions exactly as a Daemon Weapon, which is +D6 Attacks (hit yourself and don't attack if you roll a 1), and AP 2.

I have a permissive ruleset backing up my inference. I can infer something dosent happen if nothing says it happens because thats a rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I see you havent read the Errata then, as they have changed what "Daemon Weapon" is defined as.

You are making an implicit leap that the "instead of +1" has any meaning rules wise anymore. It doesnt.

Stop with the insults, as they make responding tedious.

Which errata would that be? In the errata and FAQ section of the GW website there is only 1 document for CSM and that does not change what a daemon weapon is defined as.