PDA

View Full Version : Chaos Daemons aren't "Daemons"?



Souleater
01-07-2009, 11:20
Do you treat Chaos Daemons as "Daemons" in the sense that GK/DH powers and rules work on them?

I ask because of a comment made in the Daemonic Tactica. I'd asked if Daemons get to use the Reinforcement rule (Daemonic Infestion, iirc) from the DH codex when playing against them.

The response was:


No

We don't get reinforcements

Its true, technically most of the things in our codex aren't technically a "daemon" in DH terms. But many people will play it both ways.

That seems rather silly to me. No, I lie, I'm gobsmacked. CD are the enemy that GK were created to fight (background wise) so should they be subject to the rules that effect Daemons.

It also seems odd that there are complaints about powers like Sanctuary if most of the Daemons simply ignore it. Has Tzeentch pulled off his best trick ever?

What are people's opinions? How do you play?

I'm particulary interested to hear from those people who use some of the rules in this area and not others.

Lord Damocles
01-07-2009, 11:24
Nurglings are Daemons. The other Daemons arn't Daemons.

By RAW at least.

Escaflowne_Z
01-07-2009, 11:38
No comment at this time. Codex: Inquisition or whatever needs to get here quick so this is resolved. Until then, my DH are shelved!

the_picto
01-07-2009, 11:45
I chose "yes" before reading your post. For all the wargear and powers, on the rare occassion I play against daemon hunters, I count my daemons as daemons. But, you've reminded me that the reinforcement rule exists. I may have to look it up next time I play hunters.

marv335
01-07-2009, 11:50
RAW aside, the assertation that Chaos Daemons are not deamons is just silly.
We routinely treat them as such.

Brother_Falco
01-07-2009, 11:51
the problem is a large portion of the DH's powers aimed at daemons are oriented towards forcing instability checks or making those checks more difficult to pass. As daemons no long suffer instability having Daemons gain sustained assault versus them makes an already weak codex nonviable as their anti-daemon powers just don't work.
So no, I don't think Daemons should get to use Sustained Assault either at a balance level or as a RAW choice. It makes sense fluffwise but until there's a new Codex Inquisition the DH book is fundamentally broken.

Bunnahabhain
01-07-2009, 11:55
Yes, daemons are daemons, as far as Grey knighs are concerned.

As noted above, due to the age of the DH codex, you have to use some common sense when applying their codex to the daemons one, to avoid adding power to a strong codex, without adding anything much to the weaker one..

tacoo
01-07-2009, 12:09
is posed some intresting battles for me with my daemons against GK. by rules as written nurglingsget to come back all the time, and as such a mononurgle list seems to walk on them. my friend just reliesed to bring lots of psycannons and incinerators

samiens
01-07-2009, 12:19
RAW its true they aren't daemons in that sense- but except in tourneys I'd play it as including them all!

Legionary
01-07-2009, 12:27
Yes they're Daemons for the purposes of the Daemonhunters powers and abilities. (Not by RaW but if anyone said their daemon wasn't a daemon I'd stop play there and then.)

No you don't get reinforcements - the 'Sustained Attack' rule referred to does not exist any more, and the codex does not give any detail of how it would work so it's not possible to use it.

It's hardly unfair - the advantages that Daemonhunters have over Daemons are fairly minimal really. Yes they're made tougher than they would be otherwise, but they're hardly going to be more of a challenge than well-built Chaos, Marine or Ork lists.

Znail
01-07-2009, 13:07
It also seems odd that there are complaints about powers like Sanctuary if most of the Daemons simply ignore it. Has Tzeentch pulled off his best trick ever?
Sanctuary was designed when it could only affect a small part of an enemy army, making it work against an entire army makes it stupidly overpowered.


Yes they're Daemons for the purposes of the Daemonhunters powers and abilities. (Not by RaW but if anyone said their daemon wasn't a daemon I'd stop play there and then.)

No you don't get reinforcements - the 'Sustained Attack' rule referred to does not exist any more, and the codex does not give any detail of how it would work so it's not possible to use it.

It's hardly unfair - the advantages that Daemonhunters have over Daemons are fairly minimal really. Yes they're made tougher than they would be otherwise, but they're hardly going to be more of a challenge than well-built Chaos, Marine or Ork lists.

So you are arguing that ofcourse Daemons should be Daemons, but those Daemons somehow does not Infest as they arent actualy Daemons? I wouldnt call that fair in anyway.

As far as I am concerned so either you use common sense and let things work or so do you go by RAW, ruling it lopsided just to gain an advantage isnt fair. This also includes the Force Weapons and other outdated things in the codex. I wouldnt accept updating some rules to work and some others by RAW for maximum cheeze.

Souleater
01-07-2009, 13:50
@ Znail: I wasn't considering the power of a particular rule, rather asking why if Chaos Daemons aren't Daemons there is such a problem with Sanctuary.

CEO Kasen
01-07-2009, 13:51
Legionary's pretty much correct about demons not Infesting. Show me where the Main 40K Rulebook makes any reference to the "Sustained Attack" rule.

Illiterate Scribe
01-07-2009, 15:00
It's hardly unfair - the advantages that Daemonhunters have over Daemons are fairly minimal really. Yes they're made tougher than they would be otherwise, but they're hardly going to be more of a challenge than well-built Chaos, Marine or Ork lists.


Arguably, daemons can get a lot of grief from Daemonhunters. DH lack much good anti-armour weaponry, but are capable of laying down a plethora of high strength/invulnerable save ignoring shots, all the while fielding Land Raiders everywhere.

Daemons suffer against all of those.

CEO Kasen
01-07-2009, 15:05
True, but a majority of the powers that matter against Daemons (Except Sanctuary) are not really dependent on Deamons being counted as Daemons. Psycannons and Incinerators, for example.

Znail
01-07-2009, 15:14
Legionary's pretty much correct about demons not Infesting. Show me where the Main 40K Rulebook makes any reference to the "Sustained Attack" rule.

Right next to the part about how you are supposed to ignore the DH codex list of wich units their special rules affect.

CEO Kasen
01-07-2009, 15:28
Right next to the part about how you are supposed to ignore the DH codex list of wich units their special rules affect.

Err... My point there specifically relates to Daemons not infesting. The FAQ states that in the cases where a special rule has no effect under the new edition, it is to be ignored for simplicity's sake. Of this I have no question.

Though, now that you bring it up, there is no such "DH codex list." It says their powers affect "Daemons." And while it's not explicitly stated anywhere, it's easy to make a very strong case that all units in the Chaos Daemons army are Daemons. One could probably start from the title of the armylist and go from there.

EDIT: Nevermind, found it; And that list would create an utterly bizarre hybridization of which units are affected by those powers. You'd affect Greater Demons but not the Fateweaver, Demon Princes but not the Daemonettes, Soul Grinders... Gyerk. Yeah, best to declare that list officially fired and go with whichever yes-or-no interpretation suits you best.


As written, this would be my interpretation, but of course, strictly and zealously following to the letter of old documents has caused more problems than humanity can count. How you handle it in your games is up to you; what you consider 'balanced' dependent on your local group and players.

solkan
01-07-2009, 15:40
Err... My point there specifically relates to Daemons not infesting. The FAQ states that in the cases where a special rule has no effect under the new edition, it is to be ignored for simplicity's sake. Of this I have no question.

For about two weeks after 5th edition came out, there was no such thing as ATSKNF because it was defined in the 4th edition rules and not the codex. Did any Space Marine player say "Oh, well, I guess I don't get that rule anymore. That's fair." to their opponent?

CEO Kasen
01-07-2009, 15:45
For about two weeks after 5th edition came out, there was no such thing as ATSKNF because it was defined in the 4th edition rules and not the codex. Did any Space Marine player say "Oh, well, I guess I don't get that rule anymore. That's fair." to their opponent?

According to rules as explicitly written, they evidently should have. But I'll say it again; Direct and unthinking adherence to any set of old documents is and has been a massive problem not just in 40K, but to our development and progress as a species.

DuskRaider
01-07-2009, 15:56
See, I believe they should be considered Daemons. But here's the thing... Should a Soul Grinder be considered a daemon? For purposes of DH players simply throwing up Sanctuary on either objectives or choke points, I think not. That way we at least have some way of fighting back. Otherwise it's, " Oh you have Daemonhunters? Cool. Oh, you're using Sanctuary? Good game, see ya next week!"

solkan
01-07-2009, 17:48
Despite the fact that this topic, "Are Chaos Daemons 'daemons' according to the Grey Knights rules?" as far as I can tell has no real purpose other than to cause arguments, I'll give everyone the benefit of the doubt. If this doesn't work out, luckily it's the Internet and it's highly unlikely that we'll ever have to hash these rules out for a face to face game. :\

On page 20 of the Daemonhunter codex is a definition of which units are affected by the Daemonhunter anti-daemon weapons. Of the units in that list, only greater daemons, nurglings, and (debatably) daemonically possessed vehicles are present in the Chaos Daemons codex.

On page 8 of the Daemonhunter codex is both the rules for Daemonic Infestation, including its reference to the missing Sustained Attack rules and even more non-existent unit types, and a designer's note about the intent of Daemonic Infestation being to balance out the anti-daemon powers.

If one accepts that Chaos Daemons are Daemons which are not subject to the Daemonhunter anti-daemon rules in general, then you get a situation where both rules remain in their non-functioning state as written.

If one decides to fix the list on page 20, and doesn't want to address the rules on page 8, there's a very real expectation that they're either being foolish or simply wish to play "I'm going to use Sanctuary from inside my Land Raider and shoot your daemons for five to seven turns. Too bad you can't do anything to my guys." Why would anyone want to agree to that?

Legionary
01-07-2009, 17:48
Re double standards in Daemons being Daemons but not getting Sustained Attack... feel free to allow them that rule. Go look it up in the rulebook... I'll wait. ;)

My point is that it refers to granting them a rule that doesn't exist, and it doesn't give enough detail as to how to recreate it. I personally don't have the old rulebook memorised so I've no idea how it'd work. If a codex gives you enough detail to do the rule even though it's gone (Black Templars and Target Priority) then you've to use the old rule. If it just refers to an old rule and tells you to look it up in the rulebook then the rule just does nothing.

Besides which, look at the part about Sustained Attack... "Daemon Packs, Nurglings and Daemonic Beast Packs (but not Greater Daemons, Daemon Princes or any other type of Daemon) gain the Sustained Attack rule found in the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook".

Daemon Packs don't exist, Daemonic Beast Packs and everything else is explicitly disallowed - so the only unit that would benefit from the rule, if it still existed, are Nurglings.

Nurglings gain the "Sustained Attack" rule from the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook. That means they gain nothing. Perfectly consistent.

CEO Kasen
01-07-2009, 18:08
Sanctuary is the only crimp in the whole concept of Daemons counting as Daemons; it is the one ability that's definitively game-breaking in terms of Anti-Daemon ability. Everything else either provides entirely reasonable boosts (Destroy Daemon and Daemonhammers) doesn't matter because Daemonic Instability doesn't exist anymore (Banishment) or isn't dependent on Daemons being "Daemons." (Psycannons and Mystics.)

solkan
01-07-2009, 18:32
Re double standards in Daemons being Daemons but not getting Sustained Attack... feel free to allow them that rule. Go look it up in the rulebook... I'll wait. ;)


While I'm looking that up, you can find daemonettes, bloodletters, or just about any other specific unit on the list on page 20. :P

Staurikosaurus
01-07-2009, 18:38
This amounts to people looking for easter eggs for unfair advantage.

Comes from the same type of people who asked if the Daemon Prince was a daemon in WFB Daemon armies and that Grey Knight players couldn't take Grey Knight Dreadnoughts as they were piloted by space marines and not Grey Knights.

:rolleyes:

Edonil
01-07-2009, 18:41
Honestly, annoying as the number of non-useable Deamonhunter abilities/wargear there is now available under RAW, I much prefer this setup. Daemonic Infestation was beyond silly- it's the DH version of Phase Out. With that rule in place, the best way to beat Daemonhunters is: Daemons. :wtf:

Now, for all that the Daemonhammer, Anointed Weapon, and a good half dozen or more rules/abilities no longer apply, here is something that does come into play- Daemonhunters are now an actual way to counter Daemons. The Psycannon, Psycannon Bolts, Incinerator, Scourging, DH Force Weapon, and a couple others I can't think of off the top of my head, all are more than enough to give Daemonhunters a fighting chance against their designed foes. So, I'm actually happy with the RAW stuff. Oh! And Sacred Incense still works- it just says Chaos models, which is why no Grandmaster should leave home without it, -1 Initiative to all Chaos Marines and Chaos Daemons is a bargain for its cost!

LonelyPath
01-07-2009, 18:41
I just ignore the parts of the DH codex that refer to things that no longer work, it's the simplest way to move on with things. Nothing gets Sustained Attack and I lose a few things from my codex, but every tebds to lose access to things when a new edition is released (look at the Nid codex for another example). I usually give Daemons a great run for their money and often beat them with my GK.

If a player wants the Daemonic Infestation rule in effect we'll sit down and work things out for a few minutes, rework a few rules so things that ran on instability now work in s different way (we had Destroy Daemon and Daemon Hammers inflicting multiple wounds in 1 game to try things out) and go from there. Nothing ever has to be complicated.

personally I quite like things as they are now. True I'd like to get more up to date storm shields (who doesn't? lol), but daemons can really take a hammering from GK as things stand now.

jsullivanlaw
01-07-2009, 18:44
@ Znail: I wasn't considering the power of a particular rule, rather asking why if Chaos Daemons aren't Daemons there is such a problem with Sanctuary.

There isn't a problem with sanctuary. Unless of course, you actually count chaos daemons as daemons at which point sanctuary is auto win for GK. GW needs to make a new inquisition codex. There are enough things out there that can totally screw over daemons without having to include sanctuary. Mystics, masters of the fleet, and null zone are bad enough.

Legionary
01-07-2009, 18:51
Autowin. Riiight... a psychic power that protects one squad from assault and shooting. On a T3 Inquisitor or hugely expensive Grey Knight character.

Some people are so dramatic.

CEO Kasen
01-07-2009, 18:54
The problem is, what happens if you park that squad on an objective? What happens if you have several, completely immune to anything the enemy army might do?

NeoRaven78
01-07-2009, 18:59
Doesn't the Chaos Demons Codex specifically state that all models in the army are "Demons?" I don't have the Chaos Demons Codex in front of me but I believe it is right before the descriptions of each unit. It also states that BECAUSE all models in a Chaos Demon army are demons they are fearless, have an invulnerable save, etc...

Grey Knight abilities might not work now (such as no more instability tests) but all models in a Chaos Demons army do in fact count as "demons."

Edonil
01-07-2009, 19:03
Doesn't the Chaos Demons Codex specifically state that all models in the army are "Demons?" I don't have the Chaos Demons Codex in front of me but I believe it is right before the descriptions of each unit. It also states that BECAUSE all models in a Chaos Demon army are demons they are fearless, have an invulnerable save, etc...

Grey Knight abilities might not work now (such as no more instability tests) but all models in a Chaos Demons army do in fact count as "demons."

In probably one of the most bizarre applications of RAW, if entirely correct in strict definition of the term, it comes down to a single letter. Daemonhunters abilities affect daemons (note that 'a') while the Chaos Demons (no 'a') are in the new book.

CEO Kasen
01-07-2009, 19:03
...Actually, Neoraven is absolutely right. At the beginning of the army list at Page 27, it says "This [The Daemon special rule] applies to every model in this army and includes the following four special rules."

...So there you have it. By RAW, Daemons are vulnerable to everything Daemonhunters can do, and they don't get Sustained Assault.

Edonil
01-07-2009, 19:06
...Actually, Neoraven is absolutely right. At the beginning of the army list at Page 27, it says "This [The Daemon special rule] applies to every model in this army and includes the following four special rules."

...So there you have it. By RAW, Daemons are vulnerable to everything Daemonhunters can do, and they don't get Sustained Assault.

Really? If that's true, that's very interesting...Why would GW make the UK printing have a different spelling from the US version then? If they hadn't, none of this would be an issue.

CrownAxe
01-07-2009, 19:09
...Actually, Neoraven is absolutely right. At the beginning of the army list at Page 27, it says "This [The Daemon special rule] applies to every model in this army and includes the following four special rules."

...So there you have it. By RAW, Daemons are vulnerable to everything Daemonhunters can do, and they don't get Sustained Assault.

The problem was that DH lisst what daemons are for their rules, not that CD didn't count as daemons

NeoRaven78
01-07-2009, 19:29
Really? If that's true, that's very interesting...Why would GW make the UK printing have a different spelling from the US version then? If they hadn't, none of this would be an issue.


The US version of the Chaos Daemons Codex does use the "a" when spelling daemons. I left it out because I don't like to spell Demons with an extra "a," it looks silly to me. Either way, Daemon or Demon is the SAME thing. Sorry if my spelling caused any confusion.

Znail
01-07-2009, 19:36
Re double standards in Daemons being Daemons but not getting Sustained Attack... feel free to allow them that rule. Go look it up in the rulebook... I'll wait. ;)

My point is that it refers to granting them a rule that doesn't exist, and it doesn't give enough detail as to how to recreate it. I personally don't have the old rulebook memorised so I've no idea how it'd work. If a codex gives you enough detail to do the rule even though it's gone (Black Templars and Target Priority) then you've to use the old rule. If it just refers to an old rule and tells you to look it up in the rulebook then the rule just does nothing.

Besides which, look at the part about Sustained Attack... "Daemon Packs, Nurglings and Daemonic Beast Packs (but not Greater Daemons, Daemon Princes or any other type of Daemon) gain the Sustained Attack rule found in the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook".

Daemon Packs don't exist, Daemonic Beast Packs and everything else is explicitly disallowed - so the only unit that would benefit from the rule, if it still existed, are Nurglings.

Nurglings gain the "Sustained Attack" rule from the Warhammer 40,000 Rulebook. That means they gain nothing. Perfectly consistent.

Well, the Sustained Attack rule is so simple that its not much to remember realy. It only works for Troops (that takes care of the who it works for question too). Any unit killed gets to move onto the board from the owning players edge or a side edge outside of the opponents deployment zone, during the owning players next turn.

Thats all that is relevant to Daemons, there is an extra bit about being alowed to vuluntarily remove fleeing units below 50%, but Daemons dont flee. The Daemonic Infestation rule also makes the fresh units unable to capture objectives.

Legionary
01-07-2009, 21:25
And Target Priority is mentioned in a few older codices which don't need to take the test not because it isn't possible for people to know what the rule is but because the rule is neither in the codex in anything but name or in the main rulebook.

Honestly, Daemonhunters are not overpowered against Chaos Daemons. As I've said, they're less of a challenge than the nasty Orks/Chaos/Marines lists that go about. Playing like a reasonable human being (daemons = daemons) doesn't require you to play like a tool ("I get to recycle all my troops!").

Also, re Sanctuary again - it's broken if the psyker moves or takes any actions. I would therefore recommend you kill the psyker before they make it on top of the objective. Since they are most likely to either be very easy to kill (T3 Inquisitors) or very few in number (Grey Knights HQ choices) it's not a massive problem. And remember, it requires a psychic test. That's testing on Ld10 for a HQ Inquisitor/Grey Knight or Ld8 for an Elite Inquisitor.

And if ANY army is going to be powerful against Daemons...

Znail
01-07-2009, 21:38
Also, re Sanctuary again - it's broken if the psyker moves or takes any actions. I would therefore recommend you kill the psyker before they make it on top of the objective. Since they are most likely to either be very easy to kill (T3 Inquisitors) or very few in number (Grey Knights HQ choices) it's not a massive problem. And remember, it requires a psychic test. That's testing on Ld10 for a HQ Inquisitor/Grey Knight or Ld8 for an Elite Inquisitor.

And if ANY army is going to be powerful against Daemons...

Are you aware that Inquisitors can take Land Raiders as dedicated transports or simply as a heavy choise? Not only does that make it more or less impossible for a Chaos Daemon army to stop in one turns shooting, so it can atleast get to camp any central objectives. It also means that the power extends 3" from the hull of the Landraider and blocks a far bit of the battlefield. You can pretty easily fit the entire DH army inside the protected bubbles if you take a few of them.

I realy dont get the opinion that Daemon Hunters are ment to auto-win against Daemons and auto-lose to others. It doesnt make for a fun game for anyone realy.

Lord Inquisitor
01-07-2009, 21:47
From a game balance and background perspective: Yes, Chaos Daemons are indeed Daemons. They don't suffer from Instability any more so anything that refers to Instability is useless. Daemonic Infestation rule should be ignored.

Really, the only "free" rule that still affects daemons is that Daemons roll difficult terrain when assaulting Grey Knights. Everything else specifically designed to affect daemons costs points. Certainly suggesting that Chaos Daemon Daemon Princes with the "Daemonic" special rule are not Daemons is preposterous and providing Daemon armies with Daemonic Infestation would make the game so one-sided it would not be worth playing. It may not be perfectly balanced, but it isn't far off, providing we have a gaming environment where the daemonhunter player doesn't always know what he's facing.

Souleater
01-07-2009, 22:01
/shrug

I guess in my naivety I assumed the GK and CD players would discuss the rules before hand and come up with a mutally agreeable solution that was both fun and thematic. :(

Daemons not being Daemons just seems odd :D

solkan
02-07-2009, 02:09
/shrug

I guess in my naivety I assumed the GK and CD players would discuss the rules before hand and come up with a mutally agreeable solution that was both fun and thematic. :(

Daemons not being Daemons just seems odd :D

Grey Knights are Space Marines, right? But oddly enough, even though they are Space Marines, they don't have Combat Tactics or ATSKNF. But Grey Knights, despite being Space Marines, don't fall under the rules of the seperate codex Space marienes.

Having Daemon models which aren't subject to the rules in the Daemonhunters codex, which is what this discussion is really about, is exactly the same situation.

Of course, because this is the Internet, it's not possible to simply agree to disagree, we must fight it out until all disenting parties are wrecked and weeping. :p

And obligatory GW complaint: This wouldn't be a problem if GW would put out a FAQ for either Daemonhunters or Chaos Daemons fixing the rules. :rolleyes:

Kriegfreak
02-07-2009, 02:20
/shrug

I guess in my naivety I assumed the GK and CD players would discuss the rules before hand and come up with a mutally agreeable solution that was both fun and thematic. :(


Yes, that would make sense. And would be fun. I'm sure in a more healthy gaming area this would be the norm. Assuming you don't run into people who take the rulebooks to be some 40k bible where everything is 100% literal, you should be fine. The sooner you stop worrying about every-tiny minute detail, the better. While this discussion is a valid one concerning a pretty important rule, most of them can be simply solved by not making it into such a big deal in the first place. Just my opinion mind you.

Znail
02-07-2009, 05:12
/shrug

I guess in my naivety I assumed the GK and CD players would discuss the rules before hand and come up with a mutally agreeable solution that was both fun and thematic. :(

Daemons not being Daemons just seems odd :D

I thought that was what we were trying to do? :)

But it will be difficult for any GK to convince a Daemon player that having Sanctuary work on everything makes for a fun game. Maybe if you have an Inquisitor and his Apprentice trying to footslog it across the battlefield, that might add some humor.