 When is a Daemon a Daemon? |
  |
| When is a Daemon a Daemon? |
| Buddha |
 Apr 4 2011, 01:10 PM
Post
#1
|
 El Bandito  Group: Veteran Members Posts: 9,342 Joined: 19-November 04 From: Adelaide, SA Member No.: 37  |
So,
It has come up in another thread... in Codex: CSM, Daemon Princes, and Greater/Lesser Summoned Daemons, lack the 'Daemon' Special Rule... So, Do abilities that effect 'Daemons', I.e: Grey Knight stuff, affect them? Is the Special Rule the clincher, or is simply the 'name' good enough convention for it to apply? -------------------- SA 40k Tournament Information Database
SATournamentInfo@gmail.com Email me and get added up for upcoming event information related to South Australian 40k gaming. ATC 40k Team Australia 2012 - bring on Poland!!! |
   |
 
|
| YogoZuno |
Apr 4 2011, 01:13 PM
Post
#2
|
 Member Group: Veteran Members Posts: 7,752 Joined: 19-November 04 From: Brisbane Member No.: 57 |
Either should qualify. 40k doesn't have any sort of keyword system, so unless a unit has some special rule saying it does or does not count as whatever words are in it's name, it must be an instance of that name...
-------------------- |
|
|
|
| ÆON |
Apr 4 2011, 01:32 PM
Post
#3
|
 Edition Change Skeptic Group: Veteran Members Posts: 9,485 Joined: 19-November 04 From: A Hole in the Ground (Canberra) Member No.: 222 |
Better watchout; those Chaos Lords with Daemon weapons will trigger the Grey Knights preferred enemy rule
 -------------------- "Hail ÆON - Slayer of the Scrubs" Yes, I really am that awesome :) |
|
|
|
| Zidi |
Apr 4 2011, 01:35 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Veteran Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 25-May 10 Member No.: 9,522 |
Without the rule, by raw, they are not daemons.
I think the whole idea that one army should have such advantages over one particulary army in a tourny scene is stupid. They should of just had the rules in a fluff section on it all. |
|
|
|
| Chaplain_Fortis |
Apr 4 2011, 01:40 PM
Post
#5
|
 Now about ##### Group: Veteran Members Posts: 1,008,377 Joined: 10-January 08 From: Melbourne Member No.: 4,901 |
QUOTE Without the rule, by raw, they are not daemons. I think the whole idea that one army should have such advantages over one particulary army in a tourny scene is stupid. Sounds like an unbiased opinion. There is no uniformity in 40k rules writing. Absence of a rule in a book shouldn't be seen as deliberate especially when you consider the chronology of the books. You are welcome to try it on. I wouldn't be very accepting of such childish rules manipulation. I can't imagine many TOs would be very accepting or appreciative of it either. It smacks of playing in bad faith. -------------------- "shirty, the slightly aggressive bear"
Onlainari loves sailing I want to paint stuff this year. B:215 P:17 S:27 |
|
|
|
| YogoZuno |
Apr 4 2011, 01:44 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Veteran Members Posts: 7,752 Joined: 19-November 04 From: Brisbane Member No.: 57 |
QUOTE Better watchout; those Chaos Lords with Daemon weapons will trigger the Grey Knights preferred enemy rule Why? The Daemon weapon is a daemon, but the Grey Knights will never be attacking the weapon...the Chaos Lord himself will be the target, and he doesn't have the word Daemon in his name, or as a special rule. -------------------- |
|
|
|
| ÆON |
Apr 4 2011, 01:53 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Edition Change Skeptic Group: Veteran Members Posts: 9,485 Joined: 19-November 04 From: A Hole in the Ground (Canberra) Member No.: 222 |
QUOTE(YogoZuno @ Apr 4 2011, 01:44 PM)  Why? The Daemon weapon is a daemon, but the Grey Knights will never be attacking the weapon...the Chaos Lord himself will be the target, and he doesn't have the word Daemon in his name, or as a special rule. so commonsense and fluff to justify your interpretation of the rules? -------------------- "Hail ÆON - Slayer of the Scrubs" Yes, I really am that awesome :) |
|
|
|
| neil |
Apr 4 2011, 02:01 PM
Post
#8
|
 Member Group: Veteran Members Posts: 11,500 Joined: 13-January 06 From: Adelaide Member No.: 2,415 |
QUOTE(ÆON @ Apr 4 2011, 01:23 PM) so commonsense and fluff to justify your interpretation of the rules? It's impossible to play 40k without common sense and fluff interpretations. -------------------- Please ban everyone.
|
 |
|
| Loriness |
Apr 4 2011, 02:03 PM
Post
#9
|
 Member Group: Veteran Members Posts: 1,511 Joined: 14-October 08 Member No.: 6,242 |
to be simple, if it has "daemon" in their rules entry - e.g. Avatar, Daemon codex, then they are "Daemon"
Where some Chaos units do not have these keyword in their special rule entry they are not considered as "Daemon" - until they FAQ it. -------------------- EVENT HORIZON 40k
---- June Sat 22- Sun 23, 2013 ---- Hornsby War Memorial Hall – next to Hornsby RSL Club, 2 High Street, Hornsby, NSW All inclusive 40k Event in Sydney |
|
|
|
| neil |
Apr 4 2011, 02:08 PM
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Veteran Members Posts: 11,500 Joined: 13-January 06 From: Adelaide Member No.: 2,415 |
OK, I have another related rules question.
Inquisitorial Servitors say "If a unit containing servitors does not also include an Inquisitor (blah blah)". But i can't find anything in the codex with the "Inquisitor" special rule! How can I ever avoid mindlock? -------------------- Please ban everyone.
|
|
|
|
| Zidi |
Apr 4 2011, 02:27 PM
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Veteran Members Posts: 2,556 Joined: 25-May 10 Member No.: 9,522 |
I play dark eldar and Tyranids, so i'm not sure why i would biased towards chaos marines =p.
Anyways, by RAI i agree with you, i was just stating i think its generally silly for greyknights to have all those special daemon killing rules in a tournament sense. |
|
|
|
| Buddha |
Apr 4 2011, 02:34 PM
Post
#12
|
|
El Bandito Group: Veteran Members Posts: 9,342 Joined: 19-November 04 From: Adelaide, SA Member No.: 37 |
QUOTE(Zidi @ Apr 4 2011, 03:27 PM) I play dark eldar and Tyranids, so i'm not sure why i would biased towards chaos marines =p. Anyways, by RAI i agree with you, i was just stating i think its generally silly for greyknights to have all those special daemon killing rules in a tournament sense. I agree. I liked it that there was the option that a certain ammount of anti-Daemon specific wargear was available in the OLD codex, that if you were playing a campaign Vs Daemons you had the option to take it... or took it at your own expense... but, when alot of GK's get anti-Daemon abilities enhanced as there base option, I am not sure I like that move. Most of my armies dont really give a hoot about it though... I really feel for the Daemon players however. -------------------- SA 40k Tournament Information Database
SATournamentInfo@gmail.com Email me and get added up for upcoming event information related to South Australian 40k gaming. ATC 40k Team Australia 2012 - bring on Poland!!! |
|
|
|
| ÆON |
Apr 4 2011, 02:34 PM
Post
#13
|
|
Edition Change Skeptic Group: Veteran Members Posts: 9,485 Joined: 19-November 04 From: A Hole in the Ground (Canberra) Member No.: 222 |
QUOTE(neil @ Apr 4 2011, 02:01 PM) It's impossible to play 40k without common sense and fluff interpretations. GW doesnt make a perfect game? Im sure you must be mistaken for we pay a premium to play this wonderous game! -------------------- "Hail ÆON - Slayer of the Scrubs" Yes, I really am that awesome :) |
|
|
|
| john001 |
Apr 4 2011, 03:55 PM
Post
#14
|
 Member Group: Veteran Members Posts: 637 Joined: 17-May 10 Member No.: 9,478 |
I think you can analyse this argument and put it to bed , with more then just common sense.
Every thing in the Daemons codex requires the 'Daemon' special rule for things specific to daemons in that book. Where as the chaos space marines codex does not require its daemons to have such a rule. They are named as daemons, they are described as daemons they do not require a special rule indicateing they are. In regards to the Avatar, it is not named as a daemon, it has the daemon special rule for a specific reason if it didnt have such a rule, we would not use any daemon specific abilities against him. A quick read of the units entry supports this, so I am lead to believe the only reason it has the rule is to represent how the writer wants it to be played as, it is a god so they see fit to give it the daemon special rule and have daemon abilities affect it. Finally, the GK weapons are described as affecting daemons. Not units with the daemon special rule. So if you are fighting a daemon, there abilities work because they are a daemon, period. If you are fighting an avatar, the abilities work not because the avatar is a daemon, but because he has a rule saying that for all intensive purposes he is played as a daemon there for the abilities work. If you are fighting daemons from the chaos codex, the abilities work because they either are daemons, period or a special rule makes them play as daemons (i havent looked but i dont think anything in the daemons codex isnt a daemon) |
|
|
|
| Shadow Fox |
Apr 4 2011, 04:42 PM
Post
#15
|
 Member Group: Veteran Members Posts: 2,603 Joined: 15-December 08 Member No.: 6,578 |
+ Chaos spawns in the daemon codex are not daemons because the codex states so.
+ All other units in the daemon codex are daemons because the codex states they are. + All summoned daemons are daemons - other wise you wouldn't be using the "Summoning Daemons" rule which refers to how to deploy "daemons". The very first line of this rule is in fact "Units of daemons...." + 40K does not have a naming convention and preferred enemy does not run off a special rule check. See the case of Farsight - Does he(/she?) only work against squads with "Orks" in their name or rules? + GK have prefered enemy against "Daemons" not "Models with the Daemon Special rule or naming convention". The rule is stated as "have Preferred enemy (Daemons) special rule" not "have preferred enemy (daemons special rule)" + If you want to be pedantic preferred enemy only works when striking 'their preferred enemy' so does this mean GK's only get to re-roll misses against multiple daemons? -------------------- --Campaigning against the mistreatment of Chaos Dwarves in Fantasy-- |
|
|
|
| Cheexsta |
Apr 4 2011, 06:20 PM
Post
#16
|
 Member Group: Veteran Members Posts: 3,679 Joined: 19-November 04 From: The Bat Cave Member No.: 208 |
Meh, I'd just play it that Daemon Princes and Summoned Greater/Lesser Daemons count for this rule. Maybe Possessed, too.
Here's hoping GW might errata the CSM codex to clarify which units have the "Daemon" rule...nah, who am I kidding. |
|
|
|
| its_stompin_time |
Apr 4 2011, 06:31 PM
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Veteran Members Posts: 342 Joined: 19-August 10 Member No.: 9,970 |
QUOTE(Buddha @ Apr 4 2011, 02:34 PM) I agree. I liked it that there was the option that a certain ammount of anti-Daemon specific wargear was available in the OLD codex, that if you were playing a campaign Vs Daemons you had the option to take it... or took it at your own expense... but, when alot of GK's get anti-Daemon abilities enhanced as there base option, I am not sure I like that move. Most of my armies dont really give a hoot about it though... I really feel for the Daemon players however. Its too bad the old Daemonhunters codex was a bit rubbish and half the upgrades and rules no longer effected daemons after they got a re-release. GK player: Ha! i force you to take an instability test! Daemon player: ....a what? |
|
|
|
| The Dark Angel |
Apr 4 2011, 06:57 PM
Post
#18
|
 Member Group: Veteran Members Posts: 2,463 Joined: 25-November 09 From: Western Sydney Member No.: 8,531 |
QUOTE(Shadow Fox @ Apr 4 2011, 04:42 PM) + 40K does not have a naming convention and preferred enemy does not run off a special rule check. See the case of Farsight - Does he(/she?) only work against squads with "Orks" in their name or rules? Thank you for saving me, before reading that I was almost going to flop into the boat of "no you need the Daemon special rule so thumbs up for the CSM daemon price not being a daemon" Edit: Damn it GW bring out a (good) FAQ already. To think they've been at work for an hour now......"hurry up"....  This post has been edited by The Dark Angel: Apr 4 2011, 07:00 PM -------------------- Hoorray!! Jeremy Vetock is our Savior. Let's hope that this just wasn't the usual "test" marine dex as in the past. |
|
|
|
| tenabrae |
Apr 4 2011, 07:56 PM
Post
#19
|
 Member Group: Veteran Members Posts: 12,871 Joined: 19-November 04 From: melbourne, west brunswick Member No.: 26 |
What about possessed vehicles ? Obliterators ?
I think it's simplest to just say 'things that we know are daemons' (daemon princes, lesser daemons, etc) as opposed to trying to shoehorn fluff into rules. -------------------- |[TENABRAE]|40k|[Hive Fleet Dryad]|[Feral Angels]|infinity|[Yu Jing]|alkemy|[Aurlock Nation]|
Other Projects||[Foam Building Templates]||My Leatherwork||LeatherWok |
|
|
|
| Harvey Birdman |
Apr 4 2011, 10:10 PM
Post
#20
|
 Member Group: Veteran Members Posts: 4,281 Joined: 20-September 08 From: Adelaide Member No.: 6,103 |
...
This post has been edited by Harvey Birdman: Apr 5 2011, 12:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
| Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 25th May 2013 - 06:26 PM |
CCG | Magic | Yugioh | World of Warcraft | VS | Wargaming | Film | Good Games | Shop
© 2008 Copyright WargamerAU Disclaimer