PDA

View Full Version : Bloodthirster vs Rune of The True Beast



steeler556
07-01-2008, 01:30
Hey everyone,

Ok...had this come up in a game this weekend. Is a Bloodthirster considered a "Monster" ?

Although I could not find a specific reference, page 7 of the rule book under units 'monsters' would seem to indicate as the paragraph specifically says and I quote

"Some characters like the mighty Daemon Princes of Chaos, are so large and powerful that they follow the rules for monsters."

So assuming that the Bloodthirster is indeed a 'monster' if a Beasts of Chaos character (Doombull) had the Rune of the True Beast talisman, and challenged the Bloodthirster, the Bloodthirster could not actually attack the Doombull because it was a 'lone monster' as per the talisman description?

Thanks in advance for your assistance!

theunwantedbeing
07-01-2008, 01:39
He's a character.

Doombulls cant carry the rune of the true beast.

Jonke
07-01-2008, 01:50
"Some characters like the mighty Daemon Princes of Chaos, are so large and powerful that they follow the rules for monsters."

This line has been changed in the errata to "...are so large and powerful that they follow some of the rules for monsters."

They fail to tell us exactly which rules though. But I think I've heard/read somewhere that Gav Thorpe has said that monster-characters are not affected by rune of true beast.

steeler556
07-01-2008, 01:51
He's a character.

Doombulls cant carry the rune of the true beast.


Did you read what was quoted from the rulebook? If a Daemon Prince (who is a character) is considered a Monster, why wouldnt a Bloodthirster also be a Monster??

Insert Beastlord or Bray Shaman instead then.

TheDarkDaff
07-01-2008, 02:02
Did you read what was quoted from the rulebook? If a Daemon Prince (who is a character) is considered a Monster, why wouldnt a Bloodthirster also be a Monster??

Insert Beastlord or Bray Shaman instead then.

Did you read the Errata that changed what the Rulebook says? Or the FAQ from Gav Thorpe that said that Character Monsters are exempt from those effects due to the strength of will they had (being Characters and all). Incidentally those "characters" follow some of the rules for Monsters and that is all. They aren't actually "monsters" as such.

steeler556
07-01-2008, 02:07
Did you read the Errata that changed what the Rulebook says? Or the FAQ from Gav Thorpe that said that Character Monsters are exempt from those effects due to the strength of will they had (being Characters and all). Incidentally those "characters" follow some of the rules for Monsters and that is all. They aren't actually "monsters" as such.

Could you provide a link to these Errata/FAQ documents? I checked the GW UK website and could not find anything pertaining to this situation.
TIA

Jonke
07-01-2008, 03:14
Linky (http://uk.games-workshop.com/news/errata/3/) It's in the rulebook FAQ/errata, the very first paragraph on the first page.

steeler556
07-01-2008, 03:29
ok, the insertion of the word 'some' into the paragraph doesnt (in my mind) clarify the issue as it does not specify what monster rules apply and which do not apply.
Is there any further clarification on this matter or pertaining specifically to the Rune of the True Beast talisman?

Jonke
07-01-2008, 04:32
ok, the insertion of the word 'some' into the paragraph doesnt (in my mind) clarify the issue as it does not specify what monster rules apply and which do not apply.

That is true, but it opens the possibility that the bloodthirster not being affected by rune of true beast. What it more importantly does is allowing monster-characters to join units and such which they wouldn't be allowed to do otherwise.


Is there any further clarification on this matter or pertaining specifically to the Rune of the True Beast talisman?

There is an unofficial FAQ by Gav Thorpe which he did somewhere (maybe GWs now closed forums). There should be someone here who can quote it for you.

Most important though is to discuss this matter with your opponent beforehand since it is very unclear how (or if) the ruleswriter thought in this matter.

TheDarkDaff
07-01-2008, 05:16
The insertion of the word "some" is a big difference but fairly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Because a car follows the same rules as a truck does that mean that the car is a truck. The same line of thinking applies here. The fact that the Character follows some of the rules for Monsters, does not nessesarily mean that the Character is a monster. That in my mind is enough doubt on the Character being a monster for Rune of the True Beast not to have any effect.

Nurgling Chieftain
07-01-2008, 06:30
Why can't WFB have unit-entry defined unit types like 40K does?

A Bloodthirster, while certainly a character, is also clearly a monster in terms of unit strength and movement. I don't see any particular reason to not consider it a monster in terms of the Rune. After all, a human hero with a horse is considered both a character and a cavalry model.

Also consider the Lore of Beasts spell The Beast Cowers. If there are any precedents as to whether that affects a Bloodthirster, I think they'd apply.

madden
07-01-2008, 10:39
what about a shaggoth champion hes a caracter but is he a monster as well or even a orgre tyrant he follows some monster rules, have fun.

steeler556
07-01-2008, 11:45
the most confusing aspect is that the Rulebook on page 7 under 'Character' specifically references a Daemon Prince of Chaos as also following the rules for monsters.

Now I can see the errata insertion of the word 'some' into that sentence so that the character can join units, but I don't see how this changes the fact that the character (in this case a Bloodthirster) is still a monster.

Can anyone offer further clarification or a link to his mysterious (apparantly unofficial) FAQ from Thorpe?

TIA

Sherlocko
07-01-2008, 14:17
Of course the errata fix this issue. If such characters follow -some- of the rules of monster, I read it that they can“t be monsters. If they were monsters, they would follow -all- the rules for monsters. So my conclusion is that a bloodthirster is a character who follows some of the rules for mosnters, but are not a monster, therefor, are not affected by rune of the true beast.

Havock
07-01-2008, 14:21
So, likewise, Galrauch vs Imrik (old AB) or whatever item he had that prevented dragons from attacking him...

skank
07-01-2008, 20:09
As Sherlocko said, the fact they took the time to state in a errata that 'monstrous characters' only use some of the monster rules makes it quite clear they should not be considered monsters.

Lord Zarkov
07-01-2008, 20:18
or even a orgre tyrant he follows some monster rules, have fun.

Ogre Tyrant is Ogre-Sized infantry though, so there's considerably less problem

Ganymede
08-01-2008, 01:12
As Sherlocko said, the fact they took the time to state in a errata that 'monstrous characters' only use some of the monster rules makes it quite clear they should not be considered monsters.

To the contrary, the only thing that the eratta did was make the situation even more ambiguous.

Sherlocko
08-01-2008, 09:21
To the contrary, the only thing that the eratta did was make the situation even more ambiguous.

How do you come to that conclusion? Because if someone say that "some characters follow some of the rules for monster" I don“t read it as "some characters are monsters", so why would you read it like that? the rune of the true beast states that it works on monsters, not models who follow some of the rules for monsters.

Masque
08-01-2008, 09:27
"Some of the rules for monsters" could include being affected by the Rune of the True Beast. Who knows?

Sherlocko
08-01-2008, 09:31
"Some of the rules for monsters" could include being affected by the Rune of the True Beast. Who knows?


Okay, time for bad examples. Ogre Bulls follows some of the rules of chariots(impact hits). Do you also think that Beast Cowers could be cast on them? I know this is kind of silly, but it is kind of the same logic.

Falkman
08-01-2008, 09:35
You are being very silly Sherlocko.
As Masque does indeed says, we do not know what rules for monsters the BT follows, and who's to say that he does not follow the rune of the true beast rule?
By your reason, "him following some of the rules for monsters doesn't make him a monster", why would he follow any other monster rules, since they are also specifically for monsters ;)

kroq'gar
08-01-2008, 09:52
If the monster can challenge, its a monsterous character. If it cant, or requires a hero riding it to enter a challenge, then its a monster.

DeathlessDraich
08-01-2008, 11:23
A similar answer here:

http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2241907#post2241907
post #868
but look at #866 and others before too

Yes, Kroqgar that is the only rule that could be used.

skank
08-01-2008, 14:50
Falkman: He's making a good point. The monster rules are not specifically for monsters, individual ogres follow some monster rules (monster movement) it does not make them monsters.

RotTB does not effect units with some monster rules, just monsters (and cav etc)

Ganymede
08-01-2008, 16:00
How do you come to that conclusion? Because if someone say that "some characters follow some of the rules for monster" I don“t read it as "some characters are monsters", so why would you read it like that? the rune of the true beast states that it works on monsters, not models who follow some of the rules for monsters.

Before, we could at least asume that a Daemon Prince was a monster. Now, we have no indication either way.

Nurgling Chieftain
08-01-2008, 20:15
There are several places in the rulebook where a single model on a 50mm or larger base is considered to be a monster. So, there exists multiple rules which effectively state that a Bloodthirster is a monster. That leaves a requirement to show that it's not a monster for this particular purpose... I'm not sure that the quote about some characters following "some" of the rules for monsters really fulfills that requirement, but I would love to know exactly why that rule was errata'd in that way.

TheDarkDaff
10-01-2008, 00:37
There are several places in the rulebook where a single model on a 50mm or larger base is considered to be a monster. So, there exists multiple rules which effectively state that a Bloodthirster is a monster.
Would you like to give a page reference. i can se references to models on 40mm bases being monsters too but nothing that says everything on a large base is a monster. A chariot is a single model on a base larger than 50mm so by your logic it is a monster.

That leaves a requirement to show that it's not a monster for this particular purpose...
The Burden of proof is generally considered to be the other way around. I can't see anything that categorically states the Bloodthrister is a monster so the burden is to prove that he actually is one.

I'm not sure that the quote about some characters following "some" of the rules for monsters really fulfills that requirement, but I would love to know exactly why that rule was errata'd in that way.
Monsters are not allowed to join units (ever). That means that if Greater Daemons (actually all daemonic characters except Heralds) are considered to be Monsters then they can't join a unit.

With most Army Books it is quite easy to figure out what the "monsters" in that list are(they generally have their own Beastery section). Chaos is all over the place in this regard but i would consider the following units from Chaos as being "Monsters":
- Chaos Giant
- Shaggoth (not the champion Variant)
- Chaos Dragon
- Daemonic Mounts (all of them)

I don't think any Greater Daemon, Daemon Prince, Ogre Tyrant, Ogre Butcher, Slaan Mage Priest or Doombull are actually "monsters" despite the fact they follow some of the rules for monsters. There is no difference between any of these character types.

Atrahasis
10-01-2008, 01:03
10) How do you classify Monsterous characters? Base size? Can they be affected by spells that target monsters? (IE: Beast Cowers)

GAV
A Monster is, generally, a model that is fielded on its own or as a mount, has multiple wounds and has a 40mm square or larger base. The only exceptions are Hydras and Salamanders, which come with handlers but are monsters. Ogres, Minotaurs, etc are infantry. We are currently looking at publishing an update of the ”„base size”¦ chart on the web or in WD, with added categorization on infantry/ cavalry/ monsters, etc

a. THIS IS PART OF THE ABOVE QUESTION”K. Does the Rune of the True Beast affect monstrous characters? (i.e. treeman ancients, greater daemons, shaggoth champs)?

GAV
No, they are characters. Note that, for example, this means a Shaggoth is affected, while a Shaggoth Champion isn”¦t. A character ”„monster”¦ is assumed to have the strength of mind and willpower to resist these sorts of things, while most monsters are more mindless and instinctual.


b. THIS IS THE 40MM SIZE QUESTION OF THE SAME ABOVE”K Does wolf hunts or beast cowers effect ogres/minotaurs/40mm base models?

GAV
No, they are infantry as they come in units of more than one model (or can do, in the case of Maneaters).

From a Q&A during Necro '07

sulla
10-01-2008, 09:45
From a Q&A during Necro '07

A coherent sensible answer from Mr Thorpe. Not all of his are so well thought out.

steeler556
10-01-2008, 13:12
Hey there Atrahasis, thanks for posting the commentary by Gav Thorpe to (finally) clear this up. Can you provide a link so I can check out the other Q&A's he provided responses too?

Too bad GW doesn't take some initiative and compile all of these various Q&A 'nuggets' of information found throughout the net on their website (yes, thats a big *hint* to GW!).

Lord_Byron
12-01-2008, 11:37
Okay, time for bad examples. Ogre Bulls follows some of the rules of chariots(impact hits). Do you also think that Beast Cowers could be cast on them? I know this is kind of silly, but it is kind of the same logic.

Pure comedy gold. Also, they should be auto-killed by strength seven hits and hurt themselves if they enter difficult terrain. ;) :evilgrin:

kroq'gar
12-01-2008, 11:41
they do get annhiliated when they try do bull charge to a steam tank however (yet to see it, but would be hilerious).