Jump to content

New Grey Knight FAQ, mainly Daemon part


Recommended Posts

Hi everone

 

New Grey Knight FAQ been release (a memeber has already posted it over on the =][= area) & having a read, I though it was intresting.

 

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_Custom...nights_v1_0.pdf

 

Mainly this part intresting in regard to the Rune Priest & his Runic Weapon

 

Q: What counts as a Daemon? (p21)

A: Everything in the Chaos Daemons codex, Daemon

Princes, Possessed Chaos Space Marines, Obliterators,

summoned greater Daemons, summoned lesser

Daemons, any vehicle with the daemonic possesion

upgrade, Daemonhosts, Mandrakes, Kheradruakh the

Decapitator, the Avatar.

 

Just Obliterators, they do have some Daemonic gift, I'd never really though about them being class as Daemons before, same with Mandrakes I mean this in game terms. Just wounder if these will be effected by the Rune Priest Runic Weapon - wounding on a 2+ vs all Daemons.

 

If I am wrong I am wrong. But just saw this & though about the Rune Priest Runic Weapon & how these unit can be effected by the wound on 2+ ;)

 

IP

But the question asks,

Q: What counts as a Daemon? (p21)

A: Everything in the Chaos Daemons codex

 

and the Runic Weapon entry in our codex states,

 

A Runic Weapon always wounds Daemon models on the roll of a 2+.(p36)

 

So, if everything in the Daemon Codex counts as a Daemon, and Runic Weapons always wound Daemons on a 2+... ;)

I don't think that applies to us, sadly.

I see no reason for it not too.

 

Well, it's not our FAQ but GK's FAQ.

 

But believe me that I would be very happy to be convinced otherwise .)

 

 

Yes, but how could a model be counted as a Daemon when fighting one army, but not when fighting another? :P

I don't think that applies to us, sadly.

I see no reason for it not too.

 

Well, it's not our FAQ but GK's FAQ.

 

But believe me that I would be very happy to be convinced otherwise .)

 

 

Yes, but how could a model be counted as a Daemon when fighting one army, but not when fighting another? :P

 

How can a Daemon Prince be a Daemon in Codex: Chaos Daemons and not a Daemon in Codex: Chaos Space Marines?

 

I gave up trying to find logic in GW's rules long time ago :D

I don't think that applies to us, sadly.

I see no reason for it not too.

 

Well, it's not our FAQ but GK's FAQ.

 

But believe me that I would be very happy to be convinced otherwise .)

 

Yes but it is a FAQ dealing with a term used in multiple codexes, you can't have Obliterators count as Demons in one game and not in the next, it makes no sense.

I don't think that applies to us, sadly.

I see no reason for it not too.

 

Well, it's not our FAQ but GK's FAQ.

 

But believe me that I would be very happy to be convinced otherwise .)

 

Yes but it is a FAQ dealing with a term used in multiple codexes, you can't have Obliterators count as Demons in one game and not in the next, it makes no sense.

 

Daemon Princes being Daemons and then not being Daemons doesn't make any sense either. Even though I really wish you were right, I don't think you are. In the grim darkness of the far future, there is no logic.

They are defining what is meant by daemon. So any rule applying to daemons should apply to this list. So i think it does affect us.

This is how I see it, they are ruling on something that isn't specific to a GK player it has just come to the fore with the new GK codex

 

In a game someone cannot argue that a Oblit is a daemon against GK and not against Space wolves which is great.

Daemon Princes being Daemons and then not being Daemons doesn't make any sense either. Even though I really wish you were right, I don't think you are. In the grim darkness of the far future, there is no logic.

 

I must be missing something, but Demon Princes are included in the list in the GK FAQ, so they are demons. What are you referencing when you say they are not demons?

Daemon Princes being Daemons and then not being Daemons doesn't make any sense either. Even though I really wish you were right, I don't think you are. In the grim darkness of the far future, there is no logic.

 

I must be missing something, but Demon Princes are included in the list in the GK FAQ, so they are demons. What are you referencing when you say they are not demons?

 

Now we are running in circles ;) My assumption was that the GK FAQ doesn't apply to other than GK armies (at least RAW... RAI I don't doubt it does). So there is the difference between Daemon Princes in C: CD and C: CSM, the latter of which are not listed in the C: CSM as Daemons.

Q: What counts as a Daemon? (p21)

A: Everything in the Chaos Daemons codex, Daemon

Princes, Possessed Chaos Space Marines, Obliterators,

summoned greater Daemons, summoned lesser

Daemons, any vehicle with the daemonic possesion

upgrade, Daemonhosts, Mandrakes, Kheradruakh the

Decapitator, the Avatar.

 

Alright, it says Daemon Princes are daemons. So why must it say this in the Chaos Marine FAQ?

who has ever claimed that deamon princes arnt deamons? or the avatar, lesser deamons etc. the suprise is that things that have been clased that wernt compleately obvious like mandrakes and oblits. it makes sense but really then they need to mark in the codexes what is a deamon and what isnt...
who has ever claimed that deamon princes arnt deamons? or the avatar, lesser deamons etc. the suprise is that things that have been clased that wernt compleately obvious like mandrakes and oblits. it makes sense but really then they need to mark in the codexes what is a deamon and what isnt...

Plenty of people have claimed that in the chaos forums, stating it doesnt have the daemon rule, because they didnt want the downsides.

who has ever claimed that deamon princes arnt deamons? or the avatar, lesser deamons etc. the suprise is that things that have been clased that wernt compleately obvious like mandrakes and oblits. it makes sense but really then they need to mark in the codexes what is a deamon and what isnt...

Plenty of people have claimed that in the chaos forums, stating it doesnt have the daemon rule, because they didnt want the downsides.

 

It is a very rare, rare, rare day when I put my rune priest into close combat, much less with anything daemonic. However, this seems to be a pretty bad case of bad writing in that if anything it should have been part of the BRB FAQ not the codex specific illusion of the GK FAQ.

I don't think that applies to us, sadly.

I see no reason for it not too.

 

Well, it's not our FAQ but GK's FAQ.

 

But believe me that I would be very happy to be convinced otherwise .)

 

 

Yes, but how could a model be counted as a Daemon when fighting one army, but not when fighting another? :)

 

Should do doubles games with GK's against daemon armies so we can break the wheels off this one.

who has ever claimed that deamon princes arnt deamons? or the avatar, lesser deamons etc. the suprise is that things that have been clased that wernt compleately obvious like mandrakes and oblits. it makes sense but really then they need to mark in the codexes what is a deamon and what isnt...

Plenty of people have claimed that in the chaos forums, stating it doesnt have the daemon rule, because they didnt want the downsides.

seems like someones not much in the spirit of the game... tho really the chaos boys have it hard enough. and when you think about it some things in their dex arnt counted as deamons that probably should , such as cult units...

Daemon Princes being Daemons and then not being Daemons doesn't make any sense either. Even though I really wish you were right, I don't think you are. In the grim darkness of the far future, there is no logic.

 

I must be missing something, but Demon Princes are included in the list in the GK FAQ, so they are demons. What are you referencing when you say they are not demons?

 

Now we are running in circles :D My assumption was that the GK FAQ doesn't apply to other than GK armies (at least RAW... RAI I don't doubt it does). So there is the difference between Daemon Princes in C: CD and C: CSM, the latter of which are not listed in the C: CSM as Daemons.

 

Here is the thing, FAQs, unlike codices, are not in themselves rules. They are simply answers to questions to clarify or explain rules. They are an attempt to make sense of issues or conflicts that were not anticipated when the actual rules were written. A list for what constitutes a Daemon has now been produced within the Codex Grey Knights FAQ, because certain new rules within that new codex regarding Daemons has made such classification much more important. In reality this should have been done from the start, but now we have it. The fact that it is found in the C:GK FAQ is largely irrelevant; the Studio has provided a list of Daemons, which now can be used throughout the game, regardless of what army is being played. Grey knights are not required to make this list of Daemons "valid". If you lend any weight to the FAQs, then yes, the list of units that are now affected by the special power of a Runic Weapon has been defined and the number has grown significantly.

 

Valerian

I have had some new insight regard this topic and it does not fare well for the Wolves.

 

My first point of contention is that this is from a GK faq, not a BRB faq. That is partially a pet peeve of mine, but does hold some validity when backed up by my second point.

 

The FAQ entry for this specifically mentions a page IN the GK codex, page 21 that is in reference to the GK having Preferred Enemy (Daemons) which leads to y final point.

 

Rune Priests have a runic weapon that wounds Daemon models on a 2+. Rune Priests do not have Preferred Enemy (Daemons) which the GK faq specifically is referencing.

 

That leads me to conclude that the list of defined Daemons in the GK faq is exclusive to GK only as a clarification of Preferred. Enemy (Damons) not what constitutes all Daemons in Warhammer 40k.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.