Codex: Demon Hunter Gotchas

For those who play by RAW. (So if you strictly play RAI please don't come shooting things down with a strictly RAI view). FAQ > Codex > BRB

A) Force Weapons- The Demon Hunter book Force Weapons do not cause instant death, instead they slay the model outright (just like in 4th edition). So they could take down the likes of Marneus and Logan in one strike.

B) Smoke Launchers- These do not grant obscurity in the book, instead they cause all penetrations to become glancing instead. (So a GK Land Raider pops smoke while obscured behind a piece of terrain. It gets its obscurity save against a melta pen, and the melta pen is then reduced to a glance if the obscurity check fails!)

C) Retinues (but this goes for ALL retinue. Such as Tau and Black Templar)- An IC that is attached to a retinue is considered an upgrade to it (Can not be targeted in CC, much in the way of Arjac and Lukas). If the character dies via wound allocation, it does not confer a KP as the retinue is still alive, and he was merely an upgrade. (Super sick)

D) Storm Shields- In the codex they are counted as a single ccw. As per fifth edition, 2 ccw's grant a +1 attack. Storm shields in all other books denounce the extra +1, but in the GH book it does not denounce this. So a Grey Knight terminator with Power Weapon and Storm Shield benefit from this.

E) Land Raider Crusaders (has a drawback)- Hurricane Bolters in DH book can ALWAYS fire no matter movement distance. But the Assault cannon is only Heavy 3 without rending. Which, in all honesty, makes for a much better offensive vehicle than our C:SM counterpart.

F) Thunder Hammers- Thunder Hammers in this book work much different than that in others. Other Thunder Hammers reduce the attacker to initative 1. Where as in this book, they make the wounded model strike at the END of the NEXT assault phase (after initiative 1's have gone) So if the attack results in yet another wound, the model may not attack again until the next assault phase (at the end), resulting in a perma-stun until death.

BUT, this list does not go without consequence

A) Techinically, Codex Deamons does not have a SINGLE deamon according to the deamons list in the DH book.

B) Rhinos transporting a unit with an armor save of less than 3+, and choose to shoot out of it, count as open-topped.

note that E you may use only one special weapon in close combat, therefore you would have to chose between the power weapon and storm shield.

Also, you're forgetting that, no vehicles purchased as dedicated Transports in the DH Codex can be ridden in by ANY OTHER UNIT then the one that bought it.

Our Storm Shields only confer a 4+ invuln save, and ONLY in close combat.

Yes, our Daemon powers mean nothing to Daemon Models except for Nurglings and I believe Greater Daemons.

Slain outright is Slain Outright. Yes, I've smote such things as Old Nids (Before the loss of ID), Calgar, and Daemon Princes.

I don't think anyone argues our RAW, there's no point to it, our RAW fallbacks far outweigh the things we gain from our RAW.

Yeah but GK's still blow so who cares!

So does that smoke plus obscuring terrain/units grant a Black Templar vehicle 4+ and then reduced to glancing if the cover save fails? That would be quite a bit better since they are a stand up army.

Yeah we get both, our smoke launchers are kinda superior in that sense. To be completely honest I'd rather be pen-proof in 5th ed than have cover... Being able to have both is just fantastic

As for D, it isn't considered a special ccw, it just considered a CCW. But that was also the arguement, that the storm shield could fall under SCCW. Therefore not granting an extra attack.

Matt1785 wrote:
Yes, our Daemon powers mean nothing to Daemon Models except for Nurglings and I believe Greater Daemons.

This is completely untrue. The DH book refers to units in a older book to let you know which are daemons since they were not previously labeled as daemons. Now in the new Daemons book we know all of the units are daemons and thus they are affected. This is an example of RAW attempting to overrule common sense. If I was playing DH against Chaos Daemons and that player attempted to screw me over he would find that he simply cannot, I would not allot him to do so.

Matt1785 wrote:
I don't think anyone argues our RAW, there's no point to it, our RAW fallbacks far outweigh the things we gain from our RAW.

You don't just get a bag of RAW and have to take the good with the bad. It's not like they can take your smoke launchers away from you if you refuse to go along with their shenanigans.

But then we start playing with RAI at that point Brian :p

IIRC, there is a very specific list in the DH book, something along the lines of these words "ONLY these units are considered daemons..." not entirely sure on the wording but I know it is very specific

what about models with the Daemon special rule?

You should be playing with both. RAW and RAI both have their purpose. It's not like you have to guess here, we all know they are daemons. I can easily prove it in a court of law so I don't see why we have to act like their is some sort of technicality we just can't get around.

It is a specific list because the book that had those units(which came out way before the DH book) did not describe them as daemons. Now they are in a new book called Chaos Daemons which only includes Daemon units. Just imagine a Grey Knight looking at a Bloodletter and he's like damn you are not on my list of things I can fuck with. Shit. It's preposterous.

Isn't there a part of "Codex Chaos Daemons" that specifies that all the units count as daemon's and as such must deepstrike or some doodoo like that? I mean... C'mon.

I know RAI, that's not the discussion here. He said at the beginning of the post that we're talking straight RAW in this topic. He even explicitly asked to not hear the RAI arguments as he's buttoning down the pure RAW context.

I know that Daemons should count as Daemons, for the simple fact that.. Do I really have to explain it? But that's not the discussion. And in a tournament setting, you can always refuse to play someone, but that wont help your score. And if someone decided to pull RAW on you in a tourney, they have the right to do so, just as they have the right to declare that a Land Raider purchased by an Inquisitor doesn't get the Machine Spirit for the simple fact that the FAQ specifically references the GREY KNIGHT Land Raiders, not Inquisitorial ones.

I play Daemonhunters for 40K, I have been playing them, and these things, although irritating, are things you get screwed with when you have an old Codex. I can't just take RAW on the Force Weapons and then ignore RAW for the Daemons. And the idea that I can pick and choose my RAW in the Codex is kind of a foolish argument. Using RAW only when it suits you, won't score many points in the Sportsmanship category. And by way of Force Weapons, only one guy in my ENTIRE army is going to scare anyone, because no one's afraid of an Inquisitor.

I didn't realize this was a RAW only thread. I still think that is a bad way to play the game. If you follow it to the letter you end up with people arguing Daemons aren't Daemons.

I do not recall Thunder Hammers in 3rd and 4th preventing you from ever attacking again if wounded in successive turns. Why would they do so now? Am I missing something in the 5th edition rules? Or are people using RAW to read into text?

Thunder Hammers as written now reduce those hit to initiative 1, in the Demon Hunter book it actually reduces you to below initiative 1. Blatantly stating that you attack last.

The thread wasn't to say "Raw is better than Rai" it was more of a "Hey look how cool this is in a tournament setting" discussion.

But as far as rules go I don't think I have ever played RAI, most people go by RAW....there's not many rules that should use RAI (although people will argue RAI for the Mawloc, but the way it's written it's hard to say. Fluff doesn't justify rules either. By fluff bolters should be ap 3)

And actually, going by RAW, RAI is something that players must come to angreement upon, not something just taken for granted.

But I am just being a jerk at this point :p There is definitely a place for RAW and RAI in this game. And by no means should the game be taken EXTREMELY serious....only in a tournament setting where money and glory is to be won!

Yaaargh, I R KING OF METAGAME WIT GREY KNIGHTZ, look at muh dehmon hemmer!

Good thing this codex blows such chunks, it would be annoying to regularly see people twisting things around by insisting on technicalities when they know how things should work.

Well it's not technicalities, it's written facts. Unless it's Faq'ed (don't hold your breath) you have to play it as it's written. RAI sounds more like fluff bunny bullshit to me. If we were playing FluffHammer 40k things would go very differently. According to fluff, Tau rape everything in sight, 2 squads of space marines are enough to decimate worlds, Orks always regenerate as magic shrooms quickly, and Eldar are a "Dying" race. I love Tau. I play Tau. Tau have an EXTREMELY difficult time raping anything. 2 squads of space marines die like hooches to everything in this game. Orks don't regen in game. Only in Apocacrap (Green Tide) . Eldar shouldn't be playable considering ANY losses are considered heavy losses; and the fact there weren't that many to begin with..... well shit how many Eldar have died in 20 plus years of gaming? I know this is an extreme case, but it's just an example of how silly RAI can be. If the book CLEARlY addresses the issue (Deamons/ Not Deamons) why would you try to claim it's anything else?

I didn't say RAI isn't important in-game, because it is. I'm just saying this post was meant to ignore the RAI argument to see how the Daemonhunters RAW stacks up. There are ups and downs of course.

As far as RAI being a fluff argument, that's not the case. Tau raping everything isn't RAI, nor is Eldar dying off, or Space Marines being overly powerful. RAI and Fluff are two seperate arguments. RAI has to do with how in the rules are interpretted. You're placing Storyline and Rules in the same category. RAI arguments are things like,

"My Devastators are within 2" of my rhino, so they can embark and still fire all their heavy weapons because technically, they didn't have to move." (When was the last time you got into your car without moving?)

Story arguments are things like,

"I'm Fulgrim, a God amongst men, take that Avatar!"... (What?)

RAI (Rules as Intended) RAW (Rules as Written) MSB (Meaningless Storyline Bullshit)

"I'm Fulgrim, a God amongst men, take that Avatar!"... (What?)

LoL That makes me laugh so hard!

Its the eldar's culture that's dying.

Tid bit: there are more aspect warrior eldar than space marines.

So how can anyone but the game designer know what the 'intentions' were when writing rules? It just seems like rules bending at it's best. Whoever came up with the Devastators argument should get kicked in the balls.

Ya but space marines are made in a lab. So technically they shouldn't run out. Eldar are made .... from eggs.... sooooo don't eat the quiche?

Yeah this quickly evolved into a RAI vs RAW debate which I didn't want happening.

The pathway to hell is paved with good intentions.

In a tournament, you won't see Mawlocs DS'ing onto enemy units (unless you play with the INAT Faq that adepticon uses...which is crap to me)

You won't see Daemon Hunters treating Codex Daemons as daemons for rules purposes.


You won't see assaults after a vehicle pivots (yes, if a vehicle pivots, the contents may get out, shoot, but may NOT assault....does anyone play it that way?...no...in a tournament you bet your ass I would point that out to someone)

There's alot of shit people don't do in games that, techincally, must be done. Such as 6' assaults. You MUST move your FULL 6' to attempt to get into base (steering clear of terrain and not moving into a space smaller than your base size), and the defenders MUST do the same. No one does it. I called someone out on it and I was labeled a rules lawyer....well...fucking gee...pick up the rule book and read the rules for once.

You would also notice that you may be inside of area terrain and get cover, but you can't be behind it and receive cover, unless you're within something significant in the terran (such as, between two trees) do people play it that way? Most times not, and if you target those bikes behind a patch of grass, they want cover, while clearly not being inbetween significant pieces of the terrain.

But this all actually wasn't a RAI rant, I felt bothered about certain rules being ignored and decided to rant :p.

Don't even get me started about BtB, and IC's in CC.

It's almost a shame how most people who play this expensive game don't know many rules, but want to attack the person enforcing the rules. Then labelling them a rules lawyer....cmon bro....just read please.

But now I am actually ranting on going off topic.

Josh a rules lawyer O.o? We all get rules wrong or slightly incorrect some times. Just because someone points out a rule you're not using correctly doesn't make someone a rules lawyer. I think they're jealous of your tight shirts Josh....

Lmao! I am jealous of the huge tits on your anime dream girl there