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.

HI guys.

I have an interrogation concerning the Deamon Special Rule. It is indicite that it provide a 5+ inv. save for the unit. But for maulerfiend or heldrake, as they are walkers or flyers, how do you apply this rule ?

Thanks !

You get a 5+ Invulnerable for glance/pens!

Easy.

Thanks !

Yup! it works exactly as it would against wounds allocated against a model which has such; but applied to any glancing or penetrating hits instead.

Just note that you won't actually find any general rules in the rulebook for this. Some units will have rules specifically allowing invulnerable saves against glances/pens (eg Bjorn), but there is no general rule for it.

You might be hard-pressed to find anyone who would play it otherwise, though, since that would invalidate upgrades like Flickerfields and rules like Daemon for vehicles. Just be aware that there is a very valid argument against it.

I agree Cheexsta but your best argument against anyone saying otherwise would be to point out that one GW thing where they bragged that "Vehicles with Daemonic Possession get a 5+ Invulnerable vs. glancing and penetrating hits!".

Thanks, Geedubb

Good thing we can (for the most part) end a game against someone at any time ; )

 Brometheus wrote:
I agree Cheexsta but your best argument against anyone saying otherwise would be to point out that one GW thing where they bragged that "Vehicles with Daemonic Possession get a 5+ Invulnerable vs. glancing and penetrating hits!".

Thanks, Geedubb

Good thing we can (for the most part) end a game against someone at any time ; )

While GW bragged this, giving your Rhino possession does not give it any save; thus your counter argument is invalid(daemon rule still grants the 5++ vs glance/pens though).

Okay man, I'm just offering something that people could say. I have never sought to argue it anyways

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Brometheus wrote:
I agree Cheexsta but your best argument against anyone saying otherwise would be to point out that one GW thing where they bragged that "Vehicles with Daemonic Possession get a 5+ Invulnerable vs. glancing and penetrating hits!".

Thanks, Geedubb

Good thing we can (for the most part) end a game against someone at any time ; )

While GW bragged this, giving your Rhino possession does not give it any save; thus your counter argument is invalid(daemon rule still grants the 5++ vs glance/pens though).

Common sense agrees with you, RAW is still a bit iffy. (only Bjorn's explicitly allow him to)
He was only stating it because people like to drag it up.

I was just pointing out that that particular argument hold about as much water as a fishing net since the item in question(possession) does not grant the daemon rule at all.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
I was just pointing out that that particular argument hold about as much water as a fishing net since the item in question(possession) does not grant the daemon rule at all.

Not until you decide to play Grey Knights. Then your daemonically possessed vehicles become Favored Enemy targets, too.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
I was just pointing out that that particular argument hold about as much water as a fishing net since the item in question(possession) does not grant the daemon rule at all.

Not until you decide to play Grey Knights. Then your daemonically possessed vehicles become Favored Enemy targets, too.

Which at the end of the day is kinda sad.

Helbrute for example is a Daemon and has a 5++; however is not a Daemon for GK

Hellbrute is not a daemon. It does not have a 5++ and does not even have access to Daemonic Possession.

 Shadox wrote:
Hellbrute is not a daemon. It does not have a 5++ and does not even have access to Daemonic Possession.

You ever have one of those days where you just go awwww hell naw ...

Stupid renaming of models messes me up more than anything.

@ jdjamesdean
Where is the Helbrute listed as a daemon? or that it gets a 5++?

Excepting the error, why is a Grek Knight having a Favored Enemy roll against daemonically possesed vehicles sad? Because it fits the general fluff of the army? If I hate daemons, and there's a Rhino driven by daemonic forces, I'm not going to ignore it.

 Prophet40k wrote:
@ jdjamesdean
Where is the Helbrute listed as a daemon? or that it gets a 5++?

Please see my post directly above yours.

Also note if GW still called them Dreads I wouldn't be nearly as confused.