Daemon FAQ?

[Ron]

So, the space puppies got a FAQ before we did. Why is that? Does no one(meaning GW) care about Daemons anymore or is our codex that well written?

[PyroSikTh]

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any glaring details that need to be addressed. That and there aren't a lot of Daemon players so questions frequently asked may not necessarily get to them.

Also, the other thing that springs to mind, Daemons will be the new Dark Eldar.

[Baragash]

There's a couple but not that many. Perhaps they aren't being frequently asked enough to bother.

[LanceWarrior]

To be honest - I think there are a few points that need addressing in a Daemons FAQ. But not too many.

To be honest - I think Daemons were quite a novelty army, and that GW aren't that interested in them. So Daemons will receive infrequent updates at best :\

[Warmaster Lucos]

To be honest - Deamons should have STAYED IN THE F-ING CHAOS CODEX/rant

[Enigmacookie]

Wait...so, can someone explain how the Changeling works? Have you guys all figured it out ages ago, and I'm the only one still wondering? Does your opponent have to roll for every single squad within it's range, or only for one squad?

[PyroSikTh]

To be honest - Deamons should have STAYED IN THE F-ING CHAOS CODEX/rant

Why? Daemons are an entity unto themselves. It's like saying Inquisition and Space Marines should be in the same codex because they're both of the Imperium.

Does your opponent have to roll for every single squad within it's range, or only for one squad?

Pick any enemy unit that is visible to the Changeling and is about to fire. If the unit is found to be with 24" of the Changeling, it is affected by his mind-altering mirage.

To me, that says just one.

The only issue that I'm aware of with the Changeling is if you've got more than 1 weapon per model. For example Combi-Weapons, do you fire the bolter or the one-off ammunition?

[vikinboere]

Same can be said when a chaos dreadnought goes firefrienzy, do i far a frag or a krak grenade...
I think it's bad enough you have to shoot your own squad so i would let my opponent chose if i would play daemons (as far as i can remember my friend who playes daemons and often takes the changeling let me chose to.)

[Warmaster Lucos]

To be honest - Deamons should have STAYED IN THE F-ING CHAOS CODEX/rant

Why? Daemons are an entity unto themselves. It's like saying Inquisition and Space Marines should be in the same codex because they're both of the Imperium.

Its opinion based, like most things in life, but it was just cooler to have the gods warriors fighting with the gods warriors, if you get what i mean.

why would GW "unify" the four gods in the codex, only to split up the more interesting troops from the rest?

[PyroSikTh]

[quote=Warmaster Lucos]

To be honest - Deamons should have STAYED IN THE F-ING CHAOS CODEX/rant

Why? Daemons are an entity unto themselves. It's like saying Inquisition and Space Marines should be in the same codex because they're both of the Imperium.

Its opinion based, like most things in life, but it was just cooler to have the gods warriors fighting with the gods warriors, if you get what i mean.[/quote:27039s5u]

Oh I agree completely. I loved being able to field Nurglings next to Plague Marines, but it just makes more sense for them to be split up.

[Rahveel]

Does your opponent have to roll for every single squad within it's range, or only for one squad?

Pick any enemy unit that is visible to the Changeling and is about to fire. If the unit is found to be with 24" of the Changeling, it is affected by his mind-altering mirage.

To me, that says just one.

and to me, that very clearly says all. you know, since it says 'any' not 'one' or 'a single'

[PyroSikTh]

Does your opponent have to roll for every single squad within it's range, or only for one squad?

Pick any enemy unit that is visible to the Changeling and is about to fire. If the unit is found to be with 24" of the Changeling, it is affected by his mind-altering mirage.

To me, that says just one.

and to me, that very clearly says all. you know, since it says 'any' not 'one' or 'a single'

But it also says "The unit". Singular, not plural.

[Rahveel]

Yep, because the shooting phase is resolved one unit at a time. Multiple units are never resolved simultaneously.

[Durandal]

To me, that says just one.

and to me, that very clearly says all. you know, since it says 'any' not 'one' or 'a single'

The problem is that 'any' is too vague of a term. It could just as well mean, find all units within LOS, now, pick any one of them, or any number of them. On its own, it does not lean either way. This would have to be one of those pre-game coin tosses.

[PyroSikTh]

yep, because the shooting phase is resolved one unit at a time. multiple units are never resolved simotaniously.

I don't really think that's relevant. If the rule was intended to mean more than one unit, it would say "if the units are found" rather than "if the unit is found". The lack of plural reference in the entire rule makes it kinda point towards the direction of a single unit.

[Baragash]

@Rahveel: "any" in that context is linked to visible, not permission to keep using it.

@Pyro: that's not relevant, as at that point there is only "the unit", that is the unit that is about to fire.

By RAW it is more than one because the trigger for the power is a unit about to fire with no qualification on the amount of times meeting that criteria can be triggered in a turn.

By historical context and any concept of game balance it is once per turn.

For lulz, if GW eventually FAQ it to once per turn, that is, of course, player turn, which would potentially mean you get to try on anyone packing Mystics.

[PyroSikTh]

@Pyro: that's not relevant, as at that point there is only "the unit", that is the unit that is about to fire.

Shooting is done per unit yes? That's one unit at a time, and if that's relevant and important to the rule, then why is the word "Pick" used at all?

It's hard to explain what I'm thinking towards it, but if 1 unit shooting at a time matters in this context, you wouldn't need to be doing any picking, because then each enemy unit shooting would be affected as it shoots...if you know what I mean.

[Rahveel]

To me, that says just one.

and to me, that very clearly says all. you know, since it says 'any' not 'one' or 'a single'

The problem is that 'any' is too vague of a term. It could just as well mean, find all units within LOS, now, pick any one of them, or any number of them. On its own, it does not lean either way. This would have to be one of those pre-game coin tosses.

Yet I would argue that it does indeed lean a certain way:
'Any one' would be modifying the rule, as you are adding something. It doesn’t have to affect each unit simultaneously, because units never resolve shooting simultaneously. Remember that this is not a static, 'always in effect' ability, a unit/model must specifically declare its intent to fire before glamour can affect it, and it is never (by the sequence of shooting laid out in the rulebook) affecting more than one unit at a time.
~So, any unit that is about to shoot, is in LoS, and is within 24" is eligible to be affected. There are no further restrictions placed in the codex.

[Baragash]

If a unit is about to fire, and it's visible you're allowed to pick it. Once that choice is made the rest of the rules only have that one unit to consider.

I understand what you're saying, but there is nothing in the rules that limits it to once per turn.

[PyroSikTh]

If a unit is about to fire, and it's visible you're allowed to pick it. Once that choice is made the rest of the rules only have that one unit to consider.

I see what your saying, but I still don't see any reason for the word 'pick'. It just makes it pointless if you can use it more than once.

"Unit A is going to fire at your Horrors - Okay, I pick them to be affected by Glamour - *Glamour rules take effect...* - Okay, now Unit B is going to fire at your Horrors - Cool, I pick them too - *Glamour rules take effect...* - Right, now Unit C is going to shoot at your Horrors - And them "