Are they or aren't they Daemons

[Justicar Valius]

O.K so here is the paragraph correct to the last capital letter (2nd print run btw)

 

'Daemons' Terminology

Throughout this codex, the term 'Daemon' refers to the following units:

 

All Daemonhosts, Greater Daemons and Daemon Packs, Daemon Beasts, Nurglings, Daemonically Possessed Vehicles (such as Defilers) or those with Parasitic Possesion, Living vehicle or Mutated Hull upgrades, Eldar Avatars, Possessed Chaos Space Marines, and Chaos Lords with the Daemonic Stature gift and/or over 50 points of daemonic gifts.

 

Now this does not include Chaos Daemons such as bloodletters and all the stuff from codex: Chaos Daemons apart from Nurglings. On another thread Someone said they do count... so who was right?

 

I know to a RAW standard I am correct but do you make it so your anti daemon weaponary works against all Chaos Daemon stuff? The problem is a Daemon player has most probably read the paragraph above and say no no no but then again maybe I am wrong? After all I don't own a Chaos Daemons codex so I may be completely wrong.

[Devil Dog]

I play Daemons and can tell you there is a paragraph in our codex that clearly states "All units in this codex are daemons"

 

So all your fancy anti-daemon junk works, however no daemon is a psyker so no anti-psyker stuff works.

 

And any daemon player that says "My daemons aren't daemons because your book says so" are full of crap and don't deserve to play you -_-

[number6]

Does the DH codex have verbiage that gives it exclusive Daemon-naming rights?

 

Does the DH codex have verbiage that allows it to override rules in other codexes?

 

The answer is "no" to both questions. So Daemons are, unsurprisingly, daemons. :D

[Captain Malachi]

Actually, according to absolute RAW, he's right. No, it doesn't mean our daemons aren't daemons, they just don't follow the rule your codex says since it redefines daemons to only include those units in reference to the rules in your codex.

 

However, anyone who actually tries to say your gear doesn't work deserves a swift kick to the goolies. This is one of the few cases where every sane person can agree on the intention, and as number6's sig says, unless you're at a tournament you only have to play the rules you want to. And, if you are at a tournament, then I would actually pay you good money if you could find a judge who'd rule that daemons aren't daemons for the purposes of DH wargear.

 

I'm a daemon player myself, and know several others, and not one of us would actually claim immunity. I remember seeing someone say they were gonna try it once in the liber malificorum, and all us daemon player lynched him for it, quite funny really.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

If the daemon player tries this then don't allow their daemon packs to come back from their table edge after being destroyed.

 

0b :P

[Devil Dog]

Real Daemons (Codex: CD) don't have daemon packs

[jakehunter52]

Ha-ha ha-ha ha. This topic makes me lol so much (in a non lol way). Has it really come to this? Are daemons really daemons? Next we will be asking if heretics are heretics or aren't they...RAW is no longer a reliable rule of thumb for our codex anymore. Not when we are asking questions like this. Cause it is turning my brain raw (another unenthusiastic lol). We need a nice side of RAI to go with this one. GW had enough smarts when the new IG codex came out to use the RAI (and alittle more methinks). But seriously Justicar V, this makes me chuckle inside. Thanks.

[Justicar Valius]

I'm sorry didn't know about the paragraph in the daemons codex and i'm glad i made some people laugh.

[the jeske]

RAW is no longer a reliable rule of thumb for our codex anymore.

cool only GW tells us to play stuff exactlly like its writen in the dexs [thats why your force weapons still kill stuff with eternal warrior] . there is a lot of stuff that has demon in name , but is not demon in rules, but most of it comes from codex csm. Demon Prince dont have the demon rule , nor does our dex say that they are demons . Same with lesser demons , not demon packs , no demon rule .

[number6]

cool only GW tells us to play stuff exactlly like its writen in the dexs [thats why your force weapons still kill stuff with eternal warrior] . there is a lot of stuff that has demon in name , but is not demon in rules, but most of it comes from codex csm. Demon Prince dont have the demon rule , nor does our dex say that they are demons . Same with lesser demons , not demon packs , no demon rule .

the jeske is correct. The only "daemon" units that have a RAW case to make regarding immunity to DH daemon-specific rules are the ones in Codex: Chaos Space Marines: Summoned Lesser Daemons, Daemon Prince. Summoned Greater Daemons are covered under the DH codex listing, the others are not, and they don't have any other rule that specifically says they count as daemons. I would definitely cry foul if any CSM player tried to tell me that his "Daemon" Prince and his Summoned Lesser "Daemons" aren't daemons while the Summoned Greater "Daemon" is. but at least there is RAW backing such a claim up.

Actually, according to absolute RAW, he's right. No, it doesn't mean our daemons aren't daemons, they just don't follow the rule your codex says since it redefines daemons to only include those units in reference to the rules in your codex.

That is definitely not what the listing in the DH codex does. It says that the term "daemons" in the DH codex refers to the following X units. It does not say that those are the only daemons that count. It does not say that only those units will be affected.

 

It is a list of "counts as" daemons. It is not the list of "counts as" daemons.

 

All rules that affect "daemons" affect all daemons. And here we present of list of just such units, for clarification purposes. But the two items -- daemon-specific rules and list of daemons -- are not directly connected. They exist independently of each other.

 

And furthermore, the list of daemons in the DH codex must not be allowed to overrule any other codex's list of daemons. To do so would be to allow one codex to arbitrarily overrule another codex. Which is not part of the game rules system at all.

[Captain Malachi]

Seems like you're reading it the way you want to to be honest. Personally I don't care either way, like I said, I'd never claim immunity. However, on your point about your dex over-riding mine, that doesn't really work in this case as they can quite easily work together. 'Daemon' in your codex is different to 'daemon' in mine, just like how your force weapons and storm shields etc are different to those in the SM codex.

 

Edit- Re-reading the entry I can see where you're coming from. I still don't agree with it, but I can see how you'd read it that way.

[Venenum]

There's really one two concepts that matter in this topic:

1- The spirit of the WH40k universe

2- Sportsmanship

 

No matter which way you slice it, a daemon is daemon.

To make any argument to the contrary is simply absurd.

 

We all know that one of the big draws in 40k, is the rich fictional background that provides the inspiration for the models and codex books. Forget the spirit of the rules, if you are making an immunity claim you are essentially turning your back on one of the things that makes 40k what it is.

 

A parallel concept maybe one 40k game I saw several years back. One of the terrain pieces was the old imperial bastion model. One of the players decided to deploy his vindicator tank on the roof of the bastion. Did the model fit on the roof, yes. Was it a legal deployment location, yes. Was it highly implausable in the 40k universe also, yes. Every single gamer in the store turned on him and said you can't do that.

 

If I recall correctly, roughly three versions of the Chaos codex back, it was possible for a Khorne Berzerker Champion to take a mark of Slannesh or Nurgle. (I think in those days that granted +1I or +1T) GW actually had to publish an FAQ stating that if your opponent ever deploys such a model it is to be immediately removed from table on turn one. (the champion in question is sucked into the warp to answer to the chaos gods)

 

Simply put, GW is not perfect in their rules. And when you are working with a 3rd Edition Codex in a 5th Edition universe somethings are simply going to require interpretation. And come on, it's Codex Daemons versus Codex Daemonhunters. That's gotta tell you something.

 

 

-Venenum

[the jeske]

No matter which way you slice it, a daemon is daemon.

To make any argument to the contrary is simply absurd.

cool then does that mean that your force weapon works like all the other force weapons in the game ? and that the rhinos in WH/DH have the same number of fire points , cost etc as they have in other sm codexs ? rules never had rarelly have a lot of incommon with fluff or how the w40k world "works".

 

If I recall correctly, roughly three versions of the Chaos codex back, it was possible for a Khorne Berzerker Champion to take a mark of Slannesh or Nurgle. (I think in those days that granted +1I or +1T) GW actually had to publish an FAQ stating that if your opponent ever deploys such a model it is to be immediately removed from table on turn one. (the champion in question is sucked into the warp to answer to the chaos gods)

not a champion , but a chaos lord or sorc [well not the khorn one] and it was never faq'ed , they only gave it the good old [well not old then] " we didnt knew people would play it this way". also as 5th goes FAQs are house rules just like GW says on their site . only errata are official.

[Venenum]

No matter which way you slice it, a daemon is daemon.

To make any argument to the contrary is simply absurd.

cool then does that mean that your force weapon works like all the other force weapons in the game ? and that the rhinos in WH/DH have the same number of fire points , cost etc as they have in other sm codexs ? rules never had rarelly have a lot of incommon with fluff or how the w40k world "works".

 

Yes my force weapon would work like all other force weapons on the game. I personally believe the argument that it bypasses Eternal Warrior is something of a rules exploit, and for me to try and use it would violate my sense of fair play. But again this is my personal belief and it is binding upon no one but myself and potentially my opponent depending on the outcome of the discussion before we get started. Of the three items, I personally believe the daemons discussion has the greatest black or white factor.

 

As far as Rhinos and other such equipment goes, I'd recommend you check out the current DA FAQ. They've actually answered the question quite well.

 

All of these things really come down to you, your opponents and your philosophies of the game. I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

if you aren't at a tournament, the only rules you have to follow are the ones that you and your opponent agree upon. Jervis Johnson is not going to swim across the atlantic, run to your house, kick down your front door and insist that you play by the RAW standard...

 

 

EDIT: I'll defer to your recollection of the old chaos rules as I no longer have the codex or the FAQs from that period in time.

 

 

-Venenum

[ValourousHeart]

I think that C:DH force weapons should be able to bypass eternal warrior, and here is why.

 

It is not unreasonable to expect a GKGM to be able to kill a single nurgling base in 1 round of CC.

 

But since all deamons have eternal warrior, this is not a foregone conclusion unless they can bypass that rule.

In fact if they are unable to bypass that rule then it is highly likely that the nurgling base will survive...

And lets not get into the what if the deamon player took 2 or more nurgling bases.

[Venenum]

Thematically I think an Incinerator should be the best way to wipe nurglings off the table, or a Psycannon. But...

 

There's a couple of factors here that lead into the problem you describe

1- development times. C:DH and C:Daemons were developed at different times. Worse either C:Daemons was not developed while considering the abilities of C:DH or C:Daemons was done with a new grand plan in mind for how Daemons are to function in the 40k universe while there is no timeline to update C:DH.

2- overly simplistic rules. Right now we have armour saves, power weapons that ignore saves, invulnerable saves that cannot be ignored, and then certain special weapons (i.e. C'Tan phase sword) that ignore saves that otherwise could not be ignored. Absurd, no? The problem is that this doesn't leave room for a GK GM to be able to come in and mop the floor with the nurglings while still allowing the daemons to be formidable against a regular opponent.

 

 

EDIT: clarification

[the jeske]

if you aren't at a tournament, the only rules you have to follow are the ones that you and your opponent agree upon. Jervis Johnson is not going to swim across the atlantic, run to your house, kick down your front door and insist that you play by the RAW standard...

techniclly when you dont play with rules you could say your rhinos are flyers because its in your chapter fluff and because you want it . But the rules and the official GW stand point on codexs old and new is that stuff works like it is writen . this means some stuff doesnt work at all , other stuff works different for different armies even if its the same thing. Am talking about rules and they are clear here , not how you house rule stuff.

But again this is my personal belief and it is binding upon no one but myself and potentially my opponent depending on the outcome of the discussion before we get started.

so you pay for the table and the sit down and start go through each special rule of each dex and how you think it works and depending how you and your opponent think they work [while the clock is ticking and your not playing] ? Do I understand this right and what do you do , if you happen to play someone who speaks other language then you ?

[number6]

@the jeske: You're being absurd! :D Don't intentionally misunderstand and warp Venenum's post to suit your purposes.

 

Everybody plays by the rules of the game to the best of their understanding. And GW has explicitly endorsed any variance from RAW that any two opponents can agree to use. I'ts in the BRB. It's just that simple.

 

GW has stated time and again that the game is our game to do with what we will. The starting point will always be the rules, but those rules aren't necessarily the end of the story. We always talk about RAW here on the forum because it is the only truly common ground we have for discussion, and because "strict" RAW is often enforced in tournament environments.

 

But as GW themselves have been showing each and every month in White Dwarf (for example), house rules and customizations are highly encouraged.

[Thaelion Hexis]

It is a list of "counts as" daemons. It is not the list of "counts as" daemons.

 

Indeed, the Eldar Avatar is not in that list, yet the Eldar codex states it as a Daemon. If we were to use the DH codex as the definitive list, does this mean the Eldar codex is wrong? As number6 pointed out, the DH codex does not overrule another codex, it was merely a list of what was available at the time.

 

The fact that the Daemons codex is not only named Codex: Daemons (RAI), but also has a sentence stating units as Daemons (RAW), I am of the opinion that a daemon is a Daemon

 

This debate could rage on and there will be proponents fighting for each side, inevitably.

[thrasymacus]

This company is quite possibly run by clowns. And no, I don't give them money anymore. Someone needs to just put them out of their misery. The IP needs to change hands.

[Captain Malachi]

Indeed, the Eldar Avatar is not in that list

Yes it is.

[Devil Dog]

I look at this problem this way,

 

I play an army called Chaos DAEMONs where every model has a rule called DAEMON

You play an army called DAEMONhunters

 

You have wargear that does fancy crap to DAEMONs, as far as I can tell, if it is called a DAEMON, comes packing the DAEMON special rule, its a freaking daemon

 

and i think that Grey Knight force weapons should only kill daemons outright, every1 else its just a power weapon against (well a power weapon that does other wicked stuff)

that and Daemonhunters need a new bloody codex because I'm sick of hearing people complain about how old theres is!

[avatar8481]

Simply put, GW is not perfect in their rules.

 

There's not perfect and then there's willfully ignorant and uninterested in fixing (which is the state of 'the game' such as it is). There's no profit in making the rules watertight and they get by with some handwaving about "whatever you agree to is cool" since unlike other game companies (WoTC, PP) they have no interest in running competitive play (where standard rules are a pre-requisite) but only in selling and marketing the game to 12 year olds.

[Corpse.]

I play daemons and I say GK stuff all treat my daemons as daemons. I don't bring them back onto the table after they die, just because either way its easy KP's when they are far from the enemy and just run a few turns doing nothing until the game ends.

 

GW's rules aren't perfect, but its a lack in their chain of priorities to actually stand up for a hole they refuse to patch up.