New Daemons and "Daemon"

[Seahawk]

So, the new White Dwarf rules update is out with some updates to old units and some brand new ones. Here is the issue: there are two versions of the Daemon special rule, and all of these new statlines mess it up. Here's what each give:

 

C:D Daemon:

- Fear

- Fearless

- Invulnerable! (If it has a value on it's Sv characteristic, that's an invulnerable save instead)

- Daemonic Assault (The half pop in first turn, etc)

- Daemonic Rivalry (Can't have characters from different gods join up)

 

BRB Daemon

- Fear

- 5+ Invulnerable save

 

 

So which do we use for the new units? Key note: all of them have a "-" for their Sv characteristic and no special rule that says they get an invulnerable save of any kind.

 

If we use the C:D version, none of them get any saves whatsoever because they only get one if they have it on their statline. In other words, a major disadvantage.

 

If we use the BRB version, they lose Fearless, Daemonic Assault, and Daemonic Rivalry. In other words, a major disadvantage. This forces these units to deploy like a normal army and allows characters from any god to join any other unit (Herald of Tzeentch joins Bloodletters...derp).

 

 

Naturally, the update pamphlet doesn't say which one to use, even though it seems obvious that it's the latter...but then it causes the problems, as noted above.

 

So, what do we do? Get nerfed, or get nerfed? :devil:

[jeffersonian000]

Pretty sure you use your codex, if you are playing that army. Alternate rule published in White Dwarf or FAQ or rule supplement are guidelines that can be use if all parties involved agree to use them (Codex > rulebook).

 

SJ

[Cmdr Shepard]

I believe the content of the rulebook's daemon rule applies to every model who possess it. Codex: Daemons adds its own rules who are added to the rulebook one.

 

I'll try to make my point more clear.

If a model is defined daemon outside C:CD it has a 5++ invul and the rule fear. If it is from C:CD it has all those rules plus the ones from codex (if you get two invul saves you use the better, if the model has no invul save listed you got the 5++).

 

There is no controversy on "Fear" USR since the FAQ already included it in Daemon wide-army rules.

[Seahawk]

Then why would the C:D rule require a clarification to get Fear? Getting Fear twice is silly, and there's nothing to indicate that we mash them together. We can't combine them because they are distinctly separate rules with a stupidly same name. The writers are fail.

 

 

Pretty sure you use your codex, if you are playing that army. Alternate rule published in White Dwarf or FAQ or rule supplement are guidelines that can be use if all parties involved agree to use them (Codex > rulebook).

No, official rules updates in the White Dwarf are considered for all intents and purposes to be officially part of a codex. Even so, if we use the C:D rules, then all the new daemons and Flamers and Screamers lose their saves altogether. If we use the BRB rules, they lose a lot more as indicated in the first post.

[Cmdr Shepard]

Then why would the C:D rule require a clarification to get Fear? Getting Fear twice is silly, and there's nothing to indicate that we mash them together. We can't combine them because they are distinctly separate rules with a stupidly same name. The writers are fail.

They have fear anyway, so they could even give it three times but only one test, so it's not a huge problem ;)

 

The fact "writers are fail" is a well known aspect of our game. Sadly, for the players of course.

[Seahawk]

What rule tells us to combine these two versions of Daemon?

[Cmdr Shepard]

What rule tells us to combine these two versions of Daemon?

 

Common sense. You have a text that works for every "daemon" (namely from every codex: Chaos space Marines etc.) that gives 5++ invul and fear.

Then you have a Codex that specify army-wide rules. All those rules apply to every model from that given codex.

So it's logical to assume that it describes the most characteristic traits of that army that does not exclude the traits common to every daemon.

 

For example every human being belong to the human race so they have a wide array of common traits, then several ethinc/social groups have their own traits that set them apart from others. That does not deprive them of the common human traits.

 

Am I considering GW more logical then it will ever be? ;)

 

Seriously I still believe the Codex rules set Chaos Daemon apart from other Daemons but they don't alter the "basic traits" of that "kind".

You can still read this month WD battle report and see if the mention a invul save for flamers and other similar units.... I don't know if they mentioned it but I can give it a look :drool:

The fact the use the same name for that rules is explanatory, or at least it would be in any other context. Daemon codex "integrates" the common "rule".

 

Why the don't simply said it in the new rules is one of the many GW misteries. Why the don't make things easier, especially when it would be, guess waht, easy? :)

[Seahawk]

The thing that's catching it and making it not work like that is the C:CD's version:

 

DAEMON

This special rule applies to every model in this army and includes the following four special rules: (now five)

This Daemon is specifically stated to include certain rules. I suppose an argument could be made that the Daemon at the beginning of the bestiary is not the same as the Daemon in the unit entry, but that's kinda iffy.

 

I know what GW was trying to say, but until it can hold up in a tournament setting, I think we're hamstrung.

[Cmdr Shepard]

The thing that's catching it and making it not work like that is the C:CD's version:

 

DAEMON

This special rule applies to every model in this army and includes the following four special rules: (now five)

This Daemon is specifically stated to include certain rules. I suppose an argument could be made that the Daemon at the beginning of the bestiary is not the same as the Daemon in the unit entry, but that's kinda iffy.

 

I know what GW was trying to say, but until it can hold up in a tournament setting, I think we're hamstrung.

 

Includes does not mean excludes. I still think there is room for both sets of rules. As I said being a chaos daemon does not exclude being a daemon :yes:

 

I know GW is not making things easy.

 

I said it before: I GW wrote the text of laws we would have been in trouble :)

Their texts are often unclear and open to discretionary interpretation as well misinterpretation.

[Seahawk]

Since the rules are permissive, it does mean "includes these and excludes all else", unfortunately :yes:.

[Spacefrisian]

I guess you havent checked out any errata made by GW cause its noted that the Fear rule is to be added to page 27.

 

Cause you a bit lazy searching for it, i did it for you.

 

Link

[Cmdr Shepard]

I guess you havent checked out any errata made by GW cause its noted that the Fear rule is to be added to page 27.

 

Cause you a bit lazy searching for it, i did it for you.

 

Link

 

I already mentioned the FAQ about fear USR.

I believe OP wish to know if the new daemon models (flamers and screamers, for example) have the 5++ invul save granted by daemon USR since the have "-" in their profile.

[Gentlemanloser]

You don't combine them.

 

Daemons *not* part of Codex: Daemons, use the BRB 'Daemon' Special rule (or example the Avatar).

 

Daemons part of Codex: Daemons, use the Codexes special rule.

 

As Codex > BRB.

[Cmdr Shepard]

You don't combine them.

 

Daemons *not* part of Codex: Daemons, use the BRB 'Daemon' Special rule (or example the Avatar).

 

Daemons part of Codex: Daemons, use the Codexes special rule.

 

As Codex > BRB.

 

When conflict rises. I don't see conflict here since the rules are compatible.

But obviously if something is simple it does not deserve to exist in 40k rules universe :)

[Gentlemanloser]

Same special rule, two different versions.

 

For example, one verison gives;

 

- Fearless

- Invulnerable! (If it has a value on it's Sv characteristic, that's an invulnerable save instead)

- Daemonic Assault (The half pop in first turn, etc)

- Daemonic Rivalry (Can't have characters from different gods join up)

 

The other doesn't.

 

That's a conflict.

 

Two different versions of the same rule giving conflicting abilities. ;)

[Seahawk]

I guess you havent checked out any errata made by GW cause its noted that the Fear rule is to be added to page 27.

I guess you haven't read the first post, because I included it as part of what C:CD's Daemon gives :P:

C:CD Daemon:

- Fear

- Fearless

- Invulnerable! (If it ...

 

I don't care about Fear, since both versions of Daemon give it. The problem is that one version gives an invulnerable save and forces you to deploy normally, while the other doesn't and also gives you Fearless.

 

It was the same as, pre-FAQ, storm shields and other things being exactly the same piece of kit but having two sets of rules. Different marine players were forced to play two different types of shields and etc. How is this any different? The rest of C:CD has the version of Daemon where they get certain rules, but the new and updated units are confused. The big question, for those that are confused:

 

Do the new daemons get the version that gives Fear, Fearless, Invulnerable!, Daemonic Assault, and Daemonic Rivalry, or do they get the version that gives Fear and a 5+ invulnerable save? Here's the kicker: No matter which way you choose, it's wrong and fails both the fluff and rules.

[Cmdr Shepard]

No matter which way you choose, it's wrong and fails both the fluff and rules.

 

I suppose GW will have to fix it. I'm sure they wanted to give the new models a 5++ invul save. They gave the new model a "-" save in their profile because they now list only armour saves.

I don't understand why they don't give them a "5+" save one the profile: according to the codex it would have been and invul save.

 

Anyway giving the new models no save when every single daemon in the game has at least a 5++ one makes no sense. I suspect it's just a mistake they made.

 

GW "rules makers" just made us another huge "favor"... [irony intended, of course ;) ]

[Valkyrion]

I'm with Cmdr Shepard on this -

 

The rules in the rulebook apply to all daemons, whatever the source.

The rules in the codex only apply to codex daemons.

 

It could be worded clearer - all it needed was the addition of a single line regarding the 5++.

[Cmdr Shepard]

I'm with Cmdr Shepard on this -

 

The rules in the rulebook apply to all daemons, whatever the source.

The rules in the codex only apply to codex daemons.

 

It could be worded clearer - all it needed was the addition of a single line regarding the 5++.

 

I think we can solve this "intepretation issue" using common sense ;)

I strongly agree with you: It could be worded clearer.

I'll never understand this attitude from GW. It's easier to add a single line of text to the rule before it is "released" then writing a FAQ after several moths, during which players encountered a lot of issues during their matches.

[Seahawk]

Common sense is, they should have put the 4+ and 5+ in the darn statline! Then we wouldn't have any issues. Alas, we are not so lucky...

[Cmdr Shepard]

Common sense is, they should have put the 4+ and 5+ in the darn statline! Then we wouldn't have any issues. Alas, we are not so lucky...

 

GW proved to be impervious to common sense, so it's up to us using it for our intepretations, my friend.

[Seahawk]

The rules in the rulebook apply to all daemons, whatever the source.

The rules in the codex only apply to codex daemons.

Didn't address this, but you're right. Unfortunately, none of the units in the codex have "Daemon" listed twice, at which point they'd have the rules for both. If they're in the codex (like the new models), then they only get the codex version of Daemon.

[Cmdr Shepard]

The rules in the rulebook apply to all daemons, whatever the source.

The rules in the codex only apply to codex daemons.

Didn't address this, but you're right. Unfortunately, none of the units in the codex have "Daemon" listed twice, at which point they'd have the rules for both. If they're in the codex (like the new models), then they only get the codex version of Daemon.

 

Honestly most of the players I know would agree with giving them the 5++ invul save. Unless GW FAQ it I'd give the new daemons the "benefit of the doubt".

Giving them no save at all seems a little "odd" in my opinion. I don't suggest you to ask GW customer service because they are rarely useful in such issues.

[Seahawk]

Having no save would explain the incredibly low points costs for all the new daemons though, and flamers for that matter.

[Brother Sergeant Scarus]

Having no save would explain the incredibly low points costs for all the new daemons though, and flamers for that matter.

 

Which doesn't seem to make any sense from a ''common sense/fluff/intended'' perspective, as all daemons are supposed to have a degree of invulnerability brought about by their otherworldly nature - reflected in game by a 5++ save.

 

But from a 'What's written perspective' you're absolutely right...

 

Thanks, Seahawk, this has put a solid downer on my day :)

 

*shakes fist at GW*