Librarium Online Forums banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,104 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Alright, I'm sure most if not all of you are familiar with the argument that Daemons are not Daemons because our codex states a specific list of entries considered "Daemons" and the FAQ makes no attempt to clarify this.

After pursuing this list in bordum I came across a particular entry that caught my attention: "packs of daemons."

Does this refer to a specific unit or is this any unit of daemons?

The debate rages on thanks to GW inability to officially say "Yes you morons, everything in the Daemons codex is a 'Daemon.'"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
356 Posts
Luckily I have never played someone who insisted that his daemons were not daemons. If they did I would go "so they don't have an invunerable save then?".
Daemon Packs are a specfic unit - they are the 'lesser daemons' anyone can use against Daemonhunters.
 

·
Hive Fleet Pandora
Joined
·
5,068 Posts
Since this thread is argumentative to no end, recently I've been refering to the Adepticon INAT *** v3.1 to settle my disputes, both with regards to what is a daemon and to my newer space wolves. One thing I'd recommend is to bring a copy yourself and discuss with your opponent beforehand (esp. if you know he's playing daemons or chaos marines). Then we both agree pre-game whether or not to follow their FAQ's.
 

·
I am a free man!
Joined
·
4,941 Posts
The "daemon packs" references the old 3rd edition Codex: Chaos Space Marines. Such units don't exist anymore, so just ignore that reference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,104 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Luckily I have never played someone who insisted that his daemons were not daemons. If they did I would go "so they don't have an invunerable save then?".
You can't argue that because "Daemon" is a special rule and part of having that special rule is having an invulnerable save.

As for the packs, I was afraid of something like that. Why hasn't GW FAQ'd this or Daemons yet officially? If you wound up playing Daemons in a tournament they would be able to rules lawyer thier way out of just about everything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
This reminds me of the psycannon debate vs invulnerables in 3rd Chaos. Daemons invul save said it could be taken against anything or something of the effect where the psycannon said it ignored invulerable saves specifically. Stupid right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,003 Posts
I ssid it before and I'll say it again:

It doesn't matter what is and isn't classified as a daemon or where it does or doesn't say this because all of the sources were written in a time span of say 10 years. You can't honestly expect somthing 10 years old to coincide with something brand new when you're talking about rules in a game like this(which has changed its rules many times in those 10 years)

No matter what the rules say, we all know what the intent of the rule was when it was created and it's just plain jerky to try to argue that some evil looking beast that comes from the warp is not a daemon.

It's all about playing in the spirit of the game.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,104 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
No matter what the rules say, we all know what the intent of the rule was when it was created and it's just plain jerky to try to argue that some evil looking beast that comes from the warp is not a daemon.

It's all about playing in the spirit of the game.
I agree 100%, but you know there are people out there who would rather win no matter how much grief it caused. Think of this as more of a pre-argument for when it happens =P
 

·
Junior Member
Joined
·
1,059 Posts
The one problem I have with this is that DH players try to gain the advantages of using only the wording in the codex ( force weapon anyone ) for an advantage. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

Quick note I have a small GK force and when it runs into my friends demons we do play that they are all demons but this is a house rule and in no way RAW.
 

·
I am a free man!
Joined
·
4,941 Posts
I disagree that counting daemons as daemons isn't RAW. What does the daemons codex say? Square that rule with the DH daemons list, and tell me why one rule gets to trump the other.

By RAW, the only units that don't count as daemons are Chaos Marine daemon princes and Chaos Marine summoned lesser daemons. Even the summoned greater daemons count (DH codex list). I think it's unsporting to except the lesser daemons and CSM daemon princes, but at least it's rules-legal to do so.

Why so much hate on the DH force weapon? Does nobody understand we also have to live with the crappy DH assault cannon? I'd rather have the upgraded assault cannon ANY DAY over the force weapon. I mean, we don't really need the GM to kick ass and take names. A BC + 2 GKTs -- which cost almost exactly the same points -- is WAY more effective.
 

·
Junior Member
Joined
·
1,059 Posts
I understand that using the DH codex gives you some bad items like the assault cannon. I used the force weapon as an example because it is the one people recognize the easiest. If I recall correctly the demon codex says demons are immune to instant death. The eldar avatar is listed as a demon but does not get to be immune to instant death. a case where demon in one codex does not match demon in another codex. I think that chaos demons should all be demons but finding rules to back that is a bit hard when the DH codex has a list of what is demon. I'm sorry if I came across as being a jerk and saying that you don't get bonuses against chaos demons, I just wanted to point out that it can be argued that DH don't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
234 Posts
Right, the term daemon isn't defined anywhere in the Eldar Codex, so if you want to go by the Eldar definition then it's only through what weapons say they affect daemons in certain ways. The Eldar Codex is a long way off being updated again (as it has been so in the last few years) so I doubt the definition would change. If an Eldar player wanted to argue that the Avatar uses the rules supplied in C;daemons, then, actually I'd probably let them have it. What can I say, I like the challenge and this one doesn't stop my NFW's from chewing through it.

As for all the other spiel, this sentence in the DH codex suggests several types of units that are affected by the rules. It doesn't suggest ones that aren't. GW would have done if they had tacked an 'only' on to the end of the sentence if they wanted to be THAT specific.

Agree with number6 - I am willing to let it go but I find it funny that daemon princes aren't included in the daemon rules too. Luckily I tend to play gamers that prefer challenges as I do. Maybe I'll ask the next Chaos player who sports a prince, or spawn whether he'd be open to the idea...
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top