Lokil Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Hey, im sure this has been asked before but I am unable to find it. Does our bane of the traitor special rule affect chaos space marines in the Daemonkin codex? I'm a new player and my first two games were vs the Khorne Daemonkin. We couldn't find anything that said that the marines in the army are of the chaos space marine faction... Help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonlover Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 Rules as written, no they don't. I've personally decided that's utter bunk and will allow Bane of the Traitor and similar rules to affect my Daemonkin Marines, but your playgroup may vary. Dragonlover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lokil Posted April 25, 2015 Author Share Posted April 25, 2015 Thanks for the quick reply Dragonlover! The first guy I played against allowed to to apply those rules but the second one didn't... I guess if 50% off my enemies allow me to use it I am lucky haha Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aura_enchanted Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 If it's a chaos space marine it applies to them wether it's in one codex or a formation or not. If that isn't the rule then veterans of the long war doesn't apply to dark Angels because we aren't codex marines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkAngeal Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 I agree with Aura enchanted. If your opponent is too brain dead to figure out that they are csm, then they shouldn't be playing the game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pigshead Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 As it's written, no, probably not, but your opponent is a massive arse if he can't use a little common sense and realise it's a weapon designed to hunt Chaos Marines and should therefore apply to ALL Chaos Marines.I'm lucky in that the one guy I know who plays Khorne Demonkin lets me treat them as C:SM for that rule.Hopefully this will eventually get cleared up in the next codex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoic Raptor Posted April 25, 2015 Share Posted April 25, 2015 It sounds like people are forgetting the FAQ for our Codex, which specifically states: "When a weapon with this special rule is used to attack a unit with the Chaos Space Marines faction" (emphasis mine to illustrate the change from "as written" in the book). This makes it clear that the intent of the rule is not to be limited to just those units from Codex: Chaos Space Marines. So yes, Bane of the Traitor applies to them too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shabbadoo Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 People shouldn't interpret the rules using Rules As Written, as Daemonkin didn't exist at the time of writing. Just have the rule apply to "Chaos Space Marines" in general, but not to any daemons. The Dark Angels do detest Chaos in all its forms mind you, but Traitor Space Marines....oh ho ho! They are just the worst! :D If it's a chaos space marine it applies to them wether it's in one codex or a formation or not. If that isn't the rule then veterans of the long war doesn't apply to dark Angels because we aren't codex marines The CSM codex specifically singles out out every standard marine codex by name, so the Dark Angels and everyone else with a standard codex are covered. That's why I play my Dark Angels as an army of The Fallen (i.e. as "renegade marines" using C: CSM) against somebody like that...except that I won't have wasted a bunch of points on the Veterans of the Long War upgrade like they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoic Raptor Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 Just have the rule apply to "Chaos Space Marines" in general, but not to any daemons. As I said, it already does. And has since October 2014: http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/7th-faq/Dark_Angels_v1.1_Oct14.pdf Page 62 – Deathwing Weapons, Bane of the Traitor Change rule to ‘When a weapon with this special rule is used to attack a unit with the Chaos Space Marines Faction, the weapon’s AP is improved by 1 (to a maximum of 1). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shabbadoo Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 No, it does not. The language of the Bane of Traitors rule was only errata'd to coincide with the language used in the 7E rules, which state: ARMY LIST ENTRIES IN DIFFERENT PUBLICATIONSThere are a few units whose Army List Entries are presented in more than one Games Workshop publication. Daemon Princes, for example, are presented in both Codex: Chaos Daemons and Codex: Chaos Space Marines. In these instances, the unit's Faction is determined by whichever codex it was chosen from. Be sure to keep track of which is which if you decide to take one from more than one source. --- 40K 7E Rulebook, p. 118 And so Chaos Space Marines units of any type, if taken from Codex: Khorne Daemonkin, are not members of the Chaos Space Marines Faction (only units taken form Codex: Chaos Space Marines of members of the Chaos Space Marines Faction), but are members of the Khorne Daemonkin Faction. The Khorne Daemonkin Faction has its own Faction symbol (the "Khorne" symbol), and does not use the Chaos Space Marines Faction symbol (i.e. the "Eight Arrows of Chaos" symbol), and Codex: Khorne Daemonkin is very specific about every unit in the codex being of the Khorne Daemonkin Faction, and not only tags every unit entry with their Faction symbol, but very specifically stae this is so, such that nobody can be confused about what Faction units from Codex: Khornate Daemonkin belong to; i.e. they are not of the Chaos Space Marine Faction, nor of the Chaos Daamons Faction, but of the Khorne Daemonkin Faction. And so Bane of the Traitor does not apply to untis specifailly from Codex: Khorne Daemonkin...at least until an FAQ comes along stating otherwise. As insensible as that is, that is the thruth of it...for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoic Raptor Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 I must respectfully disagree. If that were correct, the errata would not have been necessary. If Chaos Space Marines only have the Chaos Space Marine faction if they are chosen from Codex: Chaos Space Marines, no errata would have been required. The only reason errata would be required is if one could have Chaos Space Marines from another Codex that still have the Chaos Space Marine faction. So I'd be interested to hear the reason it needed errata if that's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 Forgive me I don't own the Daemonkin Codex. Are the Space Marines in it classified as Chaos Space Marines or not? Cheers I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aura_enchanted Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 Forgive me I don't own the Daemonkin Codex. Are the Space Marines in it classified as Chaos Space Marines or not? Cheers I their the same units but they are considered a separate codex because rule lawyers. And yes it still says chaos space marines for chaos space marines not daemon kin space marines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 As others have said it would apply provided the marines in Daemonkin are described as being 'Chaos Space Marines' faction (as per our own faq). If it doesn't, then no, Bane won't work. I'd be careful accusing people of being a "massive arse" or "brain dead" just because they follow the rules <_<. Sometimes the rules are non-sensical due to the passage of time and newer codexes coming along. This is GW's problem for not getting a handle on it quickly with FAQs -- not the fault of individual gamers. I remember a similar thing occurring in a previous Grey Knights' codex -- written well before Codex Daemons had been born -- where wargear worked against some Daemons and not others. Anyway vent your spleen with GW and get them to fix it if RAW is causing the issue :). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pigshead Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 I'd be careful accusing people of being a "massive arse" or "brain dead" just because they follow the rules . I retain the right to call people a massive arse if they can't call a Chaos Space Marine a Chaos Space Marine when it's clearly a Chaos Space Marine, regardless of it's codex. Or, I get to smack said massive arse around the head with their own codex. It's a harsh but fair world in the land of the Pigshead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoic Raptor Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 Indeed. I reserve the right to invoke Bane of the Rules Lawyer at any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shabbadoo Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 Forgive me I don't own the Daemonkin Codex. Are the Space Marines in it classified as Chaos Space Marines or not? Cheers I their the same units but they are considered a separate codex because rule lawyers. And yes it still says chaos space marines for chaos space marines not daemon kin space marines It is not being rules lawyer when the rules explicitly states this is how things work. A rules lawyer is somebody who argues (baselessly) rules to their own advantage, not somebody who simply cites/explains rules. The term doesn't apply in this situation whatseover. Well, actually, it applies to those who would argue that, under the current FAQ, the Bane of Traitors rule applies not only to units taken directly from Codex: Chaos Space Marines (i.e. the Chaos Space Marines Faction), but to anything that could be considered to be a Chaos Space Marine. By the correct definition of the term "rules laywer", there are some rules lawyers right here in this thread. I must respectfully disagree. If that were correct, the errata would not have been necessary. If Chaos Space Marines only have the Chaos Space Marine faction if they are chosen from Codex: Chaos Space Marines, no errata would have been required. The only reason errata would be required is if one could have Chaos Space Marines from another Codex that still have the Chaos Space Marine faction. So I'd be interested to hear the reason it needed errata if that's the case. Let me try again. Codex: Dark Angels is a 6E codex. Guess what term is not used in the 6E Core Rulebook, nor in Codex; Dark Angels? That's right, the word "Faction". Note that in the FAQ the word "Faction" is captialized, meaning it is a rules term. The Bane of Traitors rule was reworded very specifIcally so that it had the word "Faction" in it, as the word is actually associated with a particular rule in the 7E Core Rulebook (which is necessary due to this edtion's allowance of differnt units of different Factions being allowed to be combined into a single army). The rule was changed to use the current edition language. Simple as that. It is not like we lost anything. The old rules only applied to units from Codex: Chaos Space Marines. There is effectively no change to the original rule other than the wording being used. The new edtion ruels does allow for odd thigns, like getting the rule against a Daemon Prince taken from Codex:Chaos Space Marines (i.e. the Chaos Space Marines Faction) but not from Codex: Chaos Daemons (i.e. the Chaos Daemons Faction), and not now from Codex: Khorne Daemonkin (i.e. the Khorne Daemonkin Faction). tha is how the Fation rules work. Forgive me I don't own the Daemonkin Codex. Are the Space Marines in it classified as Chaos Space Marines or not? Cheers I I ansered this in detail, but a quote is worth a thousand words: 1. Faction: The unit’s Faction is shown here by a symbol. All units that have this symbol, which includes all the units described in this book, have the Khorne Daemonkin Faction. ...and... LEVELS OF ALLIANCEModels with the Khorne Daemonkin Faction have the following levels of alliance with other units from different Factions in the same army: Battle Brothers: Chaos Daemons, Chaos Space Marines. Allies of Convenience: Necrons, Orks. Desperate Allies: Dark Eldar, Tau Empire. Come the Apocalypse: Armies of the Imperium, Eldar, Harlequins, Tyranids. The antithesis of unclear, it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaplain Lucifer Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 Gentlemen, check with your gaming groups and solve it amongst the people you play. Consensus on the Internet is hard to achieve... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurieus Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 Gentlemen, check with your gaming groups and solve it amongst the people you play. Consensus on the Internet is hard to achieve... This exactly, but i do think in a competitive environement , where rules REALLY matter, the wording would probably not allow bane of traitors of the Daemonkin marines, but in friendly games, i can't see a friend wanting to win so bad he would not agree that even if faction wise they are not CSM, they obviously are... They are traitors, what ever name they have :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 Hmmm -- when is a Chaos Space Marine not a Chaos Space Marine? Answer: when he's in the Daemonkin Codex apparently . C'mon GW, if this is not what you intended (and who are we to challenge or second guess their intentions ) then pull your fingers out !! Just on the issue of rules lawyering -- again be careful with this as a derogative. There's nothing wrong with using RAW as a basis for gaming -- with dice-offs if needs be for those situations that defy unravelling. As a mod in the Official Rules section for a few years, I know rules lawyering/lawyers is NOT what this is about. This is about using available rules and applying them. I'm surprised and disappointed that some are viewing this as such. Cheers I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnakeChisler Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 These books were written in differing editions of the rule set We've had a few trail codecs and now they've gone into splitting stuff off more into factions with formations and while its cool in some respects it unfortunately seems to be causing discussion over RAW. If your reading a rule set written in different editions you really need to apply it in context and also use a bit of common sense by trying to get a precedent from the BRB or another source that seems applicable. The age old RAW v RAI is a bit of a red herring coz for the most part you can see what was meant for the rule and also how its evolved in some cases, there are obvious RAI v RAW conflicts such as the Jinking Skimmer that's immobilized but GW rule set is written for Hobbyists. The Current codex is probably the forerunner to the replacement of the CSM codex so are they splitting the 4 powers or will these books be regarded in the same way as Harlequins with respect to Eldar? So in that respect a Chaos space marine is still a Chaos Space Marine no matter what Codex Supplement evolves from the Bowels of GW or what DataSlate or Formation you pull it from as for example Veterans of the Long War would still be in effect against Legion of the Damned if you took the force from Codex Legion of the Damned instead of Codex Space Marines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoic Raptor Posted April 27, 2015 Share Posted April 27, 2015 I agree - it's not like someone using the Champions of Fenris supplement could claim that his units weren't Space Wolves just because they come from a different Codex (which is a 7th Edition book, by the way). Hopefully we'll see a FAQ that brings common sense back into the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnakeChisler Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 GW don't really see it in the same light as some on the internet so in this case an FAQ is highly unlikely The problem is that they see a lot of these things as obvious and if they addressed 1 of these they'd have to do them all providing more FAQ than main rule book. There also loath to address issues in case by making a ruling on 1 thing they basically open a can of worms so if the intent is there and as I said it passes the hobbyist test then they don't get involved with the rules lawyer stuff. For local gaming groups most people are reasonably relaxed about these things and if theres a query will ask one of the experienced players for some advice/ruling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoic Raptor Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 The problem is that they see a lot of these things as obvious and if they addressed 1 of these they'd have to do them all providing more FAQ than main rule book. There also loath to address issues in case by making a ruling on 1 thing they basically open a can of worms Or, they could just write the rules more sensibly and carefully in the first place... instead they left a loophole that absolves them of any accountability. If we have to write and interpret all the rules, why are we paying so much for books? The fact is, this needs addressed in an FAQ for the sake of those who refuse reason for a competitive edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aradiel Posted April 28, 2015 Share Posted April 28, 2015 I agree with Ulfgrim. There have been several factors that drove me away from 40k and one of them is that if i have to pay premium for the rules, them i bloody well expect premium quality rules in return. Until that happens GW can keep their rules and i will keep my money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.