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.

Unless I'm missing something, Eldar can still summon Daemons. I see in the new codex it specifically lists Sanctic Daemonology as being allowed to all the Eldar Psykers, but doesn't list Maelific Daemonology. While, at first glance, this may seem to indicate that they can no longer summon Daemons, the core rulebook says:

"Unless otherwise stated, all Psykers, other than those belonging to the
Tyranids Faction, can generate powers from the Daemonology discipline.
Each time a Psyker generates a power from the Daemonology discipline
he can choose to generate it from either the Sanctic or Malefic set of powers."

So, since the core rulebook says they CAN take Maelific Daemonology, and the new Codex doesn't say they CAN'T take it, they can technically still summon Daemons RAW, right?

Codex trumps rulebook... Nice try though.

Seems to be 'otherwise stated'.

The new codex doesn't say that they can, so they can't, You're operating under the assumption that because it doesn't say that they can't that they can. That isn't true. The codex lists which powers they may take. By not listing Maelific they have specifically forbidden the model from using that discipline.

It's not otherwise stated. I'd allow it per RaW. Otherwise stated would have to look like "can't take malefic daemonology" or "can ONLY take telekenisis".

 Kriswall wrote:
It's not otherwise stated. I'd allow it per RaW. Otherwise stated would have to look like "can't take malefic daemonology" or "can ONLY take telekenisis".

The latest edition of an army rulebook states what they can use, while not mentioning what they can't use. It's been this way since forever.

Whatever it says you can generate powers from in Codex: Eldar: Craftworlds, is what you can generate for the units in said book. The Base Rule Book always has it's rules for such stuff like that printed under it's release, and at the time, yes Eldar could indeed still use Malefic powers. New book trumps that.

 SRSFACE wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
It's not otherwise stated. I'd allow it per RaW. Otherwise stated would have to look like "can't take malefic daemonology" or "can ONLY take telekenisis".

The latest edition of an army rulebook states what they can use, while not mentioning what they can't use. It's been this way since forever.

Whatever it says you can generate powers from in Codex: Eldar: Craftworlds, is what you can generate for the units in said book. The Base Rule Book always has it's rules for such stuff like that printed under it's release, and at the time, yes Eldar could indeed still use Malefic powers. New book trumps that.

Where is your "unless otherwise stated" wording? What in C:EC tells us we CAN'T use MD? BRB grants permission. C:EC doesn't have any wording to revoke said permission. This is very much a situation where we can because the Codex doesn't say we can't.

It's otherwise stated because you're given the list of what you can draw powers of. In that list of what you can draw powers of, Malefic is not stated. Therefore it is stated otherwise.

Permissive ruleset. The BRB gave you permission to use it, the new codex, by omitting it from the list of where you can draw the powers from, means you no longer have permission to use it.

 Ghaz wrote:
The new codex doesn't say that they can, so they can't, You're operating under the assumption that because it doesn't say that they can't that they can. That isn't true. The codex lists which powers they may take. By not listing Maelific they have specifically forbidden the model from using that discipline.

The new codex also doesn't say they can make shooting attacks, so I guess that fixes eldar then. The Rulebook says units can make shooting attacks, but the codex doesn't say they can, and codex trumps rulebook.

With that logic nothing can move, shoot, charge, fight, cast powers...seriously?

@OP, if they are given the option to roll on Malefic in their unit profile, then yeah, they can.

The Base rulebook says that IN ADDITION to whatever psychic powers are listed for a psyker, all psykers can take Daemonology unless otherwise stated. In order to "trump" that, the new codex would need to state that they COULDN'T take it. It doesn't.

It's ASSUMED that they can't because it specifically lists Sanctic as being allowed, but listing Sanctic as being allowed is superfluous, because the base rulebook already allowed them to take sanctic even if they didn't list it. If, in the new codex, the farseers said: "Farseers generate their psychic powers from Telepathy, Divination, and Runes of Fate" No one would be arguing that they couldn't take either Sanctic or Maelific Daemonology. People are simply jumping to that conclusion because it lists Sanctic positively, but it didn't need to. Even if it DIDN'T say they could take it, they could take it unless otherwise stated. The base rulebook sets the standard by which all the codices must be interpreted. Yes, codices can override a rule in the rulebook, but in order to do so, it must somehow indicate that it's doing so.

No rule in the new Eldar codex forbids them from taking Maelific powers, and the base rulebook allows ALL psykers to take Maelific powers unless otherwise stated.

It doesn't say 'in addition'.

It says, word for word:

'Unless otherwise stated, all Psykers, other than those belonging to the Tyranids faction, can generate powers on the Daemonology table' (BRB, Pg 28).

 Frozocrone wrote:
It doesn't say 'in addition'.

It says, word for word:

'Unless otherwise stated, all Psykers, other than those belonging to the Tyranids faction, can generate powers on the Daemonology table' (BRB, Pg 28).

Thank you. It means what it says.

Since that has come out, for every codex everywhere, it has been taken to mean exactly what it says. Unless they specifically counter that in a codex, or FAQ it, that hasn't changed. "All Psykers" means all psykers. Omission isn't "otherwise stated". The very definition of the word "Omitted"" is the opposite of "Stated".

Ahh I do apologise you are right.

Case in point being SM Libby's rolling on Daemonology, despite not saying in their profile. Granted it's not a 7th ed Codex but still.

Trust GW to fail once again

RAI is a different thing altogether (Immobilized and Jink being a case)

RAI, Indeed, I expect this will be FAQed once it's brought to enough attention.

RAW? Yes, most definitely.
RAI? No, most definitely.

Roknar wrote:
RAW? Yes, most definitely.
RAI? No, most definitely.

Agreed. It's another case where we are pretty sure we can tell what they meant to write, they just sucked at writing it.

Indeed. Codex: Grey Knights for example states under "Purity of Spirit" in the Appendix section:

"Grey Knights Psykers can only generate Sanctic powers from the Daemonology discipline – they cannot manifest Malefic psychic powers from this discipline."

I'm not aware that Codex: Eldar Craftworlds has any similar restriction. Certainly it does not appear in the Appendix section in C: EC.

This is a warning sign more then likely, I think at this point we all know that next edition (by which point every army should have a new codex) the rule book will omit that whole part about who can use demonology. The New Codex's specifically state where you can draw your powers from and that is it. So yeah RAW eldar can summon demons, RAI definitely not. And honestly if an eldar player wanted to be an idiot and summon demons I would let him because he would probably kill his psyker anyway :-p

The intent is crystal clear. GW just sucks at writing rules.

 Frozocrone wrote:

Case in point being SM Libby's rolling on Daemonology, despite not saying in their profile. Granted it's not a 7th ed Codex but still.

SM are granted permission by their FAQ.

But at this point, why bother? It would be much quicker just to table the opponent with the CAD than to take the time with daemons.

xera32 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
The new codex doesn't say that they can, so they can't, You're operating under the assumption that because it doesn't say that they can't that they can. That isn't true. The codex lists which powers they may take. By not listing Maelific they have specifically forbidden the model from using that discipline.

The new codex also doesn't say they can make shooting attacks, so I guess that fixes eldar then. The Rulebook says units can make shooting attacks, but the codex doesn't say they can, and codex trumps rulebook.

False. By giving the unit shooting weapons the codex says they can make shooting attacks.

 Ghaz wrote:

xera32 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
The new codex doesn't say that they can, so they can't, You're operating under the assumption that because it doesn't say that they can't that they can. That isn't true. The codex lists which powers they may take. By not listing Maelific they have specifically forbidden the model from using that discipline.

The new codex also doesn't say they can make shooting attacks, so I guess that fixes eldar then. The Rulebook says units can make shooting attacks, but the codex doesn't say they can, and codex trumps rulebook.

False. By giving the unit shooting weapons the codex says they can make shooting attacks.

So by giving the units the Psyker special the codex says they can us the Malefic table?

 FlingitNow wrote:

So by giving the units the Psyker special the codex says they can us the Malefic table?

While your point is good, I'd discourage you from engaging the trolls. The primary point is that the rulebook clearly states that all psykers get Daemonology, and that in order to counter that, all a codex must do is state otherwise. Omission is not stating otherwise, as the word "Omitted" is the exact opposite of "Stated". All these guys trying to say "They stated it directly, by stating something else" are clearly trolling. No one could have such a poor grasp of the English language and still be able to communicate clearly on such a forum.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

So by giving the units the Psyker special the codex says they can us the Malefic table?

While your point is good, I'd discourage you from engaging the trolls. The primary point is that the rulebook clearly states that all psykers get Daemonology, and that in order to counter that, all a codex must do is state otherwise. Omission is not stating otherwise, as the word "Omitted" is the exact opposite of "Stated". All these guys trying to say "They stated it directly, by stating something else" are clearly trolling. No one could have such a poor grasp of the English language and still be able to communicate clearly on such a forum.

The only argument they could have is it states Daemonolgy (Santic) thus clearly stating what Demonology they can take. But that is reaching at best. The argument holds for harlequins too. However the rule is clear that they don't get Malefic even if RaW they do.

Except that "The rule is clear" isn't true, because most tournaments follow RAW, so they would, in fact, be able to take Maelific in most tournaments, I'd think. Or perhaps you meant that RAI is clear, which I'd agree with. But most tournaments don't go with RAI unless they specifically state the ruling beforehand, as making a RAI call during the tournament could easily be viewed as favoritism, biased rulings, or any other number of unflattering titles.

Ackoogin wrote:

SM are granted permission by their FAQ.

Technically, so are Eldar, even though they don't have to be, since the rulebook already gives that permission and nothing else takes it away. As of the writing of this post, the Eldar FAQ is still posted on games workshops website and says this: "Any model with the Psyker or Psychic Pilot special rule may generate their powers from the Daemonology discipline in addition to the others listed in their Army List Entries."

When RaI is this clear most tournaments will rule with it. Heck plenty of tournaments make up rules on the fly. So many tournaments I go to make you roll to hit once for Psychic Shriek and then only apply the effect if you hit with no rules pack mention of those two rules being invented. Others limit army composition in all sorts of weird ways, limit 2++ rerolls to 4++, change invisibility etc.

I doubt a single Tournament would rule that Eldar can take Malefic and anyone that would do that in a game is clearly OK with cheating, as that is exactly what doing this is.

Blah... Lazy good for nothing eldar players and their continued attempts to take their extremely broken eldar codex and break it more. Know what's worse than an eldar player in general? A cheating eldar player in general. You guys are the worst of the worst. If there was one army 40k could do without.. it's eldar. Erreta the idiots.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Blah... Lazy good for nothing eldar players and their continued attempts to take their extremely broken eldar codex and break it more. Know what's worse than an eldar player in general? A cheating eldar player in general. You guys are the worst of the worst. If there was one army 40k could do without.. it's eldar. Erreta the idiots.

The Codex isn't broken, just some units in it. Admittedly pretty much any unit is usable (but that's what a good Codex should be).

I'd also refrain from generalising players like that. Not all Eldar players are like that. Most certainly, you've got players of other races pulling garbage rules-lawyering to gain an advantage, even when RAI is clear. It's not just Eldar trickery.

Cheers to Ackoogin for the FAQ update