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.

Which is the point

Would you claim that, pre 5th ed BT FAQ, BT smoke launchers gave *both* Obscured and a downgrade of pen to glance? No, because the two rules while having the same name have different rules - and you only have permission to follow one rule, not both

You have two rules, and the codex one is different. You are compelled to follow the codex one, as per page 7 (from memory) and have *no permission * to follow the rulebook one

this means that, RAW, flamers and screamers have no Inv save

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which is the point

Would you claim that, pre 5th ed BT FAQ, BT smoke launchers gave *both* Obscured and a downgrade of pen to glance? No, because the two rules while having the same name have different rules - and you only have permission to follow one rule, not both

You have two rules, and the codex one is different. You are compelled to follow the codex one, as per page 7 (from memory) and have *no permission * to follow the rulebook one

this means that, RAW, flamers and screamers have no Inv save

They certainly had them at Feast of Blades, from what I saw. Now where did they get those lovely toys. Trying to piece it together.

In 5th ed they replaced smoke launchers pen -> glance with 4+ cover (obscured); they also said that if you had the same rule in codex and rulebook you used the codex one.

This is the same issue - you have two rules with different effects but the same name. You are required by the rules to pick the Codex one

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Which is the point

Would you claim that, pre 5th ed BT FAQ, BT smoke launchers gave *both* Obscured and a downgrade of pen to glance? No, because the two rules while having the same name have different rules - and you only have permission to follow one rule, not both

You have two rules, and the codex one is different. You are compelled to follow the codex one, as per page 7 (from memory) and have *no permission * to follow the rulebook one

this means that, RAW, flamers and screamers have no Inv save

They certainly had them at Feast of Blades, from what I saw. Now where did they get those lovely toys. Trying to piece it together.

So a TO made a ruling that's against RAW. News at 11. Or Daemon players claimed that flamers had 5++and their opponents didn't call TO.
But yes, RAW Flamers don't have invuln save. RAI, they should. It is also possible that RAI they shouldn't have EW.

I really hope this stupid non EW for daemons doesnt become the norm in the next codex as it would completely ruin the army

Dont worry - flamers and screamers are still EW as they use the Daemon rule from their codex, as the rules tell you.

No mate i mean in their new codex, rumoured to be hitting in januray!

IF they are both USR Daemon, then they are not different special rules even if they have different definitions. The codex Daemon would override the BRB.

Tiarna Fuilteach wrote:
I really hope this stupid non EW for daemons doesnt become the norm in the next codex as it would completely ruin the army

Why would it?, no other armies have this many EW units?, and the fact that EW makes force weapons not that good against them goes completely against the fluff.

MarkyMark wrote:

Tiarna Fuilteach wrote:
I really hope this stupid non EW for daemons doesnt become the norm in the next codex as it would completely ruin the army

Why would it?, no other armies have this many EW units?, and the fact that EW makes force weapons not that good against them goes completely against the fluff.

For the most part they're horrendously overcosted, must use Daemonic assault. Codex is showing it's age, I can go on.

I was really hoping hte GW website would add some clarity to this rules dispute (i for one am on the WD + Codex rules ONLY side) but currently the GW page for screamers & flamers both indicate 1W / 4++ models.... this is out of date (shocking!)

There is also one thing to keep in mind here.

The Codex: Daemons FAQ has an ammement to add Fear to all the Models in that codex.

Chaos Daemons FAQ v1.1 wrote:
Page 27 – Fear.
Add the following army special rule to the Daemonic Forces
page:
“Every model in the Codex: Chaos Daemons army list (including
Chaos Spawn) has the Fear special rule (see the Warhammer
40,000 rulebook).”

Why would they do that if you are supposed to use the BRB Daemon and the Codex Daemon rules together?
They even reference the 40K BRB for the Fear rule.

They made it a point to add Fear because you are not supposed to use both rules together.

40k-noob wrote:
There is also one thing to keep in mind here.

The Codex: Daemons FAQ has an ammement to add Fear to all the Models in that codex.

Chaos Daemons FAQ v1.1 wrote:
Page 27 – Fear.
Add the following army special rule to the Daemonic Forces
page:
“Every model in the Codex: Chaos Daemons army list (including
Chaos Spawn) has the Fear special rule (see the Warhammer
40,000 rulebook).”

Why would they do that if you are supposed to use the BRB Daemon and the Codex Daemon rules together?
They even reference the 40K BRB for the Fear rule.

They made it a point to add Fear because you are not supposed to use both rules together.

If I were a gambling man I'd wager that GW screwed up and the new updates are supposed to get the 5++

RAW agreed, they get nada.
RAI this just can't be right

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
There is also one thing to keep in mind here.

The Codex: Daemons FAQ has an ammement to add Fear to all the Models in that codex.

Chaos Daemons FAQ v1.1 wrote:
Page 27 – Fear.
Add the following army special rule to the Daemonic Forces
page:
“Every model in the Codex: Chaos Daemons army list (including
Chaos Spawn) has the Fear special rule (see the Warhammer
40,000 rulebook).”

Why would they do that if you are supposed to use the BRB Daemon and the Codex Daemon rules together?
They even reference the 40K BRB for the Fear rule.

They made it a point to add Fear because you are not supposed to use both rules together.

If I were a gambling man I'd wager that GW screwed up and the new updates are supposed to get the 5++

RAW agreed, they get nada.
RAI this just can't be right

I agree. I think they meant to give them the same save they had before the WD update.

I hope a new round of FAQ's come out relatively soon.

you think screamers need to be 2W with a 4++!?!

really? Have you played against them yet?

clever handle wrote:
you think screamers need to be 2W with a 4++!?!

really? Have you played against them yet?

I think they'll be
2w 5++

<,< give them a 4++ I dare GW


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The rules state " a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once." BGB pg 32

Benefits of Daemon
5+invul
Fear
Benefits of C Daemon
Daemonic assault
EW
ETC

Looking at it with fresh eyes they do stack with each other.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

clever handle wrote:
you think screamers need to be 2W with a 4++!?!

really? Have you played against them yet?

I think they'll be
2w 5++

<,< give them a 4++ I dare GW


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The rules state " a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once." BGB pg 32

Benefits of Daemon
5+invul
Fear
Benefits of C Daemon
Daemonic assault
EW
ETC

Looking at it with fresh eyes they do stack with each other.

Actually, you missed a couple of things.
BRB: Daemon = Fear + 5++
Codex: Daemon = Fear + Invulnerable! (EW + Armor Save ++) + Daemonic Assault + Daemonic Rivalry

So according to pg 32 of the BRB, Codex Daemon wins out because you would otherwise be doubling up on DAEMON if you applied both.


PS. Glad you found that reference on pg 32 btw.

clever handle wrote:
you think screamers need to be 2W with a 4++!?!

really? Have you played against them yet?

Actually they probably should get the 4++ back. Right now they have no benefit from being daemons of tzeentch.

The problem stems from the stat line. "Save" in most codexes means armor save. The daemon codex lists "save" as the invulnerable.

The WD update seems to be using the default "armor save" instead of the codex daemons invulnerable save for the stat line.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them retain the 4++.

No, they really shouldnt - theyve dragged them to the same stats as their fantasy counterparts, which only get a 4+ ward by being horrors with a herald.

I would be surprised for them if they get a 4++, especially for the points costs.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, they really shouldnt - theyve dragged them to the same stats as their fantasy counterparts, which only get a 4+ ward by being horrors with a herald.

I would be surprised for them if they get a 4++, especially for the points costs.

Well they did get cheaper but you can't take as many in a unit. 9 Max now.

So if we assume that the base Invul for a daemon is (or intended to be) 5++, then Flamers being daemons of Tzeentch will probably get a +1 to that Invul and bring them back down to 4++ anyway.

That is what my guess is will happen with the new Codex or FAQ, which ever comes first.

You could only take 9 before. they also got cheaper and gained a wound - dropped by 33% price wise (actually more, but too lazy and thats close enough), went up in survivabilty especially ont he drop against quad guns and dangerous terrain significantly.

Again: in fantasy, which this new errata has normalised their stats to, DoT get 5++ ward saves; only horrors in a herald led unit get 4++

Additionally the new chaos codex deos NOT give a Daemon (prince) of Tz +1 save any longer, so there is no reason to assume this will happen with daemons in a new book

Flamers and Screamers could go up to 12 before, and now only 9 with the WD update.

It is just a guess on my part, based on the current Codex.

anything could happen i suppose.

True enough - and you didnt need 12, not at the old price. Howevr seeing lots of maxed screamer units now, especialy given TB is shooting phase...

They get a 5++ as its a benefit they only recieve once.

So it looks like this is now settled.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2570038a_Chaos_Daemons_v1.1a.pdf

although a mistake by GW to post the German version under the English site. Folks have translated part of it.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/486002.page

40k-noob wrote:
So it looks like this is now settled.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2570038a_Chaos_Daemons_v1.1a.pdf

although a mistake by GW to post the German version under the English site. Folks have translated part of it.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/486002.page

I don't think it'll be 'settled' until it comes out in english. Similar to how the one of the non-English FAQs for CSM said that Daemon Princes with wings were FMCs while the rest said Jump MCs.

I'm not saying I agree with that, but I think the arguing will continue until it comes from GW, in English.

40k-noob wrote:
So it looks like this is now settled.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2570038a_Chaos_Daemons_v1.1a.pdf

although a mistake by GW to post the German version under the English site. Folks have translated part of it.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/486002.page

I don't read German, I'll wait for the english version thanks ^^

If this is accurate, Flamers and Screamers have no save of any kind now - since they don't have a save and the Codex rule just turns the listed save into an invul.

rigeld2 wrote:
If this is accurate, Flamers and Screamers have no save of any kind now - since they don't have a save and the Codex rule just turns the listed save into an invul.

Yeah, this makes me sad, as while I don't spam them, they've both become the workhorses of my army.

I suppose I can still get a cover save though.

new 1.2 faq is up, screamers and flamers have both daemon rules now.

Q: Do models chosen from Codex: Chaos Daemons and / or the White
Dwarf, August 2012, Codex: Chaos Daemons official update have the
Daemon special rule from the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook, or do they
have the Daemon army special rule from Codex: Chaos Daemons?
(p27)
A: All models from Codex: Chaos Daemons and/or the White
Dwarf, August 2012, Codex: Daemons official update have the
Daemon army special rule listed in Codex: Chaos Daemons
with the addition of the Fear special rule from the Warhammer
40,000 rulebook and a 5+ invulnerable save.
Q: If Chaos Daemons are taken as allies, or are purchased as