PDA

View Full Version : Beast Cower



atsc83
16-07-2008, 15:55
Hi all, I have been wondering about this for the longest time, and I dont know if this has been answered yet or whether it will change in light of the new BEASTS OF CHAOS errata. Apparently Blood thirsters and other greater daemons alike are affected by the spell beast cower. I have been subject to this and have lost games because of this (it did not help that this were most casted with irresistable force with the help of magic items). In lieu of the new errata for BOC, which substantiates that Rune of the True Beast does not affect monstrous characters due to the fact that they are less instinctual than common beasts. Hence I believe this same explanation is fertile ground for arguing why greater daemons should not be affected by Beast Cower and the like effects.
Thoughts?

EvC
16-07-2008, 15:59
Daemons of Chaos specifically states Greater Daemons are monsters. Beast Cowers affects monsters. Therefore it affects Greater Daemons. You wouldn't complain that you get to cast Beast Hunts on your Greater Daemon, would you? ;)

The Rune of the True Beast ruling only applies to that Rune in particular. It should not be considered for other reasons.

decker_cky
16-07-2008, 16:11
The BoC FAQ question was silly, and you get into the realms of nonsense when you extend it. Sorry, you can't shoot at my greater daemon...he has the strength of will to avoid it. Aside from rune of the true beast and the orc item that's almost identical, there isn't really a case for the GD to not be targeted.

Of course....if they'd bothered to read daemons of chaos before writing that FAQ, we wouldn't have this problem.

atsc83
16-07-2008, 16:18
Daemons of Chaos specifically states Greater Daemons are monsters. Beast Cowers affects monsters. Therefore it affects Greater Daemons. You wouldn't complain that you get to cast Beast Hunts on your Greater Daemon, would you? ;)

The Rune of the True Beast ruling only applies to that Rune in particular. It should not be considered for other reasons.

Well Im not really complaining, I think I failed to mention the fact I won a game where my Bloodthirster was cowered for 5 rounds. Its more of a fluff thing, my "research" has come to show that monstrous characters are a gray area, and in different texts demons/shaggoths the like have been refered to as characters who follow certain rules for monsters. And if u actually read the particular ruling on the Rune of the True Beast, I believe u will find that the manner in which GW substantiates why monstrous characters are not affected by it applies to the spell beast cower as well. And no I do not see a scenario where I will cast beast hunt on my greater daemons, I generally avoid playing in a non-fluffy way. My purpose in starting this thread was to find responses with better reasoning extending from the Daemon army book(which I read to shreds) and other rule sources...man I hope they put this in the Daemons Q&A...

atsc83
16-07-2008, 16:24
The BoC FAQ question was silly, and you get into the realms of nonsense when you extend it. Sorry, you can't shoot at my greater daemon...he has the strength of will to avoid it. Aside from rune of the true beast and the orc item that's almost identical, there isn't really a case for the GD to not be targeted.

Of course....if they'd bothered to read daemons of chaos before writing that FAQ, we wouldn't have this problem.

U mean aside from the fact that it was also a character? Then for that matter why doesnt beast cower just affect anything? Your logic is problematic in this instance, unless you are arguing that monster is an umbrella term which governs everything mounted on a 40mm or larger base. In which case would open an even bigger can of worms. I know we all feel strongly about things but at this rate things will jus devolve into something akin to the likes of "your nonsense is more ridiculous than my nonsense". Please refrain from snappy and belittling language.

Loopstah
16-07-2008, 16:34
U mean aside from the fact that it was also a character? Then for that matter why doesnt beast cower just affect anything? Your logic is problematic in this instance, unless you are arguing that monster is an umbrella term which governs everything mounted on a 40mm or larger base. In which case would open an even bigger can of worms. I know we all feel strongly about things but at this rate things will jus devolve into something akin to the likes of "your nonsense is more ridiculous than my nonsense". Please refrain from snappy and belittling language.

Except that Greater Daemons are explicitly described as being monsters as well as characters.

They are monsters and therefore stuff that affects monsters, affects them.

The fact that they are also a character is only relevant for the Rune of the True Beast.

decker_cky
16-07-2008, 18:33
U mean aside from the fact that it was also a character? Then for that matter why doesnt beast cower just affect anything? Your logic is problematic in this instance, unless you are arguing that monster is an umbrella term which governs everything mounted on a 40mm or larger base. In which case would open an even bigger can of worms. I know we all feel strongly about things but at this rate things will jus devolve into something akin to the likes of "your nonsense is more ridiculous than my nonsense". Please refrain from snappy and belittling language.

My logic isn't problematic in the least. Is it a monster? If yes, it can be targeted as a monster. The question is silly because on one hand, greater daemons are monsters, and on the other shaggoth lords are not. The question was cut and paste from a response I saw given by Gav for a tournament Q&A almost 2 years ago. In that time, greater daemons went from not being monsters to being monsters, yet the wording was not changed.

And why can't I use snappy and belittling language towards GW when the rest of warseer gets to?

Volrath
18-07-2008, 22:48
oh you sure can, its almost implied on the side of the box when you buy something....you swear to yourself at the price everytime, that makes me mouth off. But yes, reading before hand helps with rules clarifications, especially when its GW clarifiying their own rules =P

Varghulf does not like beast cower =(

sulla
19-07-2008, 04:29
U mean aside from the fact that it was also a character? Then for that matter why doesnt beast cower just affect anything? Your logic is problematic in this instance, unless you are arguing that monster is an umbrella term which governs everything mounted on a 40mm or larger base. In which case would open an even bigger can of worms.

Guessing you haven't actually read the new Daemons of chaos, huh? Secifically the Daemonic Characters box on page 30 that clearly tells us that "while Greater Daemons and Daemon Princes are characters, they are also monsters, as defined by the game,"... Both Beast cowers and Rune of the true beast should logically affect them because of this. That RotTB doesn't is a testament to the FAQ writer's lack of dilligence writing (or rather cutting and pasting) the updated Beasts FAQ.

Jerrus
19-07-2008, 07:19
Dispelling Beast Cowers shouldn't be that hard, considering that a Bloodthirster has MR2.

WLBjork
19-07-2008, 08:05
Makes me think they're regretting the first pieces of errata in the Rulebook Q&A.

The Red Scourge
19-07-2008, 08:29
It all comes from greater deamons serving the same purpose as lords on dragons ie. the ultimate fighting machines of the game. And so should have the same weaknesses, so they wouldn't end up being "broken".

The Rune of the True Beast was problematic, in that its purpose was to protect BoC from dragon riders and such, as the list had no immediate way of dealing with these things. For some reason GW got cold feet though and nerved it, as it would leave the deamon with no chances at all against the runebearer unlike the dragon lord who still had a rider to fight with.

It is odd though that they didn't give Van Horstmanns Speculum a second glance, as it has just the same effect on a bloodthirster as a non FAQed Rune of the True Beast :p

Regarding the OP:

You can't argue for the Beast Cowers should be affected by the Rune of the True Beast FAQ. As although they are similar in effect, they are both unique rules. It is like arguing that Treemen Ancients should be able to take great weapons just as Shaggoth Lords, as they are both monsters and characters.

Fulgrim's-Chosen
20-07-2008, 07:57
I think the OP was suggesting from a FLUFF perspective, that it makes no sense that a Greater Daemon of Chaos....like a Bloodthirster, which is the Avatar of the God of War, can be "cowered" in any sense of the word, by a spell that is designed to spook Oxen and Horses (primarily).

That's what's silly about the spell.

I think it makes sense that creatures that are strong-willed enough can naturally shake off the effects of that kind of enchantment, and the "Force of Will" argument that GW uses in the Rune question/answer makes perfect sense in terms of supporting this position.

-----

Honestly....the things that should probably "not" be affected by Beast Cowers are things like the Greater Daemons....Treemen Ancients....Shaggoth Champions...Dragons (they are supposed to be brilliant creatures, in most cases, and not just dumb beasts like Boars or Manticores //Pegasus//etc.)....and a few others.

I suppose from a Balance//Gameplay position though, it would be too weak/useless if GW set it up like that.

---

But from a FLUFF perspective, which I think is all the OP was talking about....it is pretty silly that a Thirster can be "cowered" (or whatever other word you want to think up to describe why he is being "frozen in place" from a spell that is designed to spook the horses of cavalry or chariots, etc).

T10
20-07-2008, 10:32
The question, really, is wether The Beast Cowers will allow a Blood Thirster to make a Flee! charge declaration even though immune to psychology!

:)

-T10

EvC
20-07-2008, 14:12
But from a FLUFF perspective, which I think is all the OP was talking about....it is pretty silly that a Thirster can be "cowered" (or whatever other word you want to think up to describe why he is being "frozen in place" from a spell that is designed to spook the horses of cavalry or chariots, etc).

The Bloodthirster has an animal component (A dog head) with a Daemonic version of a dog's brain, so why shouldn't it be affected by a magic spell that affects animals? ;)

I don't mind complaints about rules that stem from "the fluff", but there is no reason to think that the fluff should not affect a Bloodthirster. There may be some things that it's curious for it to affect (E.g. a Dragon Ogre Shaggoth rather than a Dragon Ogre), but a Bloodthirster is not one of them...

sulla
21-07-2008, 07:10
Honestly....the things that should probably "not" be affected by Beast Cowers are things like the Greater Daemons....Treemen Ancients....Shaggoth Champions...Dragons (they are supposed to be brilliant creatures, in most cases, and not just dumb beasts like Boars or Manticores //Pegasus//etc.)....and a few others.



Even manticores are supposed to be able to master language... And normal shaggoths and treemen should be as intelligent as the character versions IMO.

It becomes way to messy when you try to apply that sort of subjectiveness to monsters. Cleaner IMO to just apply it as a blanket rule. At the end of the day, it is magic.

Kristov
21-07-2008, 16:25
There is a FAQ question on an item called the Rune of True Beasts on page 2 of the FAQ.

The Rune of True Beasts is an item in the Beasts of Chaos book, which I have, and is similar to the Beasts Cowers spell.

Pg. 63 of the Beast of Chaos Book

"Rune of the True Beast
The bearer has a rare and potent rune fused into their flesh, a sigil of pure savagery that has devolved its wearer into nothing more than a ravenous mass of muscle and fangs. Even the strongest beast will cower before the unbridled ferocity of this raging predator.

Ridden monsters, lone monsters, the steeds pulling chariots, cavalry mounts and swarms may never direct their attacks at a model bearing the Rune of the True Beast, although their riders may attack as normal."

The FAQ question is:

"Q. Does the Rune of the True Beast affect monstrous characters (i.e. Treeman Ancients, Greater Daemons, Shaggoth Champions, etc.)?
A. No, they are characters. Note that this means that a Shaggoth is affected while a Shaggoth Champion isn't. A monstrous character is assumed to have the strength of mind and willpower to resist these sorts of things, while most other monsters are more mindless and instinctual in behaviour."

*Bolded above for most important parts by me.

Anyway, reading the wording of the FAQ answer and the wording of the item in question as well as the Beast Cowers spell, that it appears to me that Monstrous Characters are not affected by these "sorts of things" (GW Beasts FAQ pg 2).

If you look, the wording for both the item Rune of True Beasts and the wording for the Beast Cowers spells are very very close, almost being the same except obviously beast cowers has a harsher effect. Anyway, GW points out Monstrous Characters are not affected by these sorts of things (i.e. the Rune) and I can't think of anything else that would be more closely be considered that type of thing except for Beast Cowers. Heck the Rune of the True Beasts even says that the enemy Beast will cower.

decker_cky
21-07-2008, 16:55
It's a very very subjective language being used, and you really can't expect people to agree. Without a specific FAQ, GDs can still be cowered.

EvC
21-07-2008, 16:58
Yes, and they're still two different items, and the FAQ for Rune of the True Beast still doesn't apply to the Beast Cowers. To be honest, this FAQ ruling was pulled out of some staffer's backside who suddenly thought it wasn't fair that an always-on item could render monstrous characters useless; at least with Beast Cowers, there is a chance to stop the spell. I really wouldn't apply one very stupid FAQ ruling elsewhere.

Loopstah
21-07-2008, 17:00
"these sort of things" could also be taken to mean magic items, as the Rune of the True Beast is a magic item.

So no monstrous characters can be effected by magic items because they have the strength of will to resist them. ;)

Until GW clarify what they mean by "these sort of things" or FAQ monstrous characters and their relation to items that affect monsters then it's best just to take the Beasts FAQ as only applying to the Rune itself.

decker_cky
21-07-2008, 17:53
To be honest, this FAQ ruling was pulled out of some staffer's backside who suddenly thought it wasn't fair that an always-on item could render monstrous characters useless; at least with Beast Cowers, there is a chance to stop the spell. I really wouldn't apply one very stupid FAQ ruling elsewhere.

Actually...it's a direct copy/past from almost 2 years ago when Gav gave an answer to some tournament organisers. I wish I could find the thread, but it's quite the dig to get it. The wording wasn't changed in the least. It came out 2 weeks after the DoC book came out, but didn't reflect the rules change.

It's a particularly annoying response since Shaggoth Champions aren't even monsters as per a previous FAQ.

EvC
22-07-2008, 10:09
Exactly, it was pulled out of some staffer's backside. I too have seen the Q & A you're talking about, that's why I know it's a stupid answer that was given rashly (By someone who doesn't even work for the company any more)!

The Red Scourge
24-07-2008, 11:36
...this FAQ ruling was pulled out of some staffer's backside who suddenly thought it wasn't fair that an always-on item could render monstrous characters useless...

You've got it wrong. FAQs are never written by people actually playing the game. When GW wants to do a FAQ, they call up their lawyers and have them clean up the mess left by hare brained games designers.

It becomes evident when you read the FAQ and notice how they always go straight RAW.

decker_cky
24-07-2008, 21:35
Except when they brag about something being obvious in spite of RAW. As in...the intention of beast herds ranking 4 wide is obviously to make it slightly easier to charge side by side war machine crews, so they don't need to rank 5 wide, but greater daemons, who are explicitly considered monsters, must be immune to the rune because it would be overpowered in a character in a beast herd that won't have ranks when fighting a greater daemon anyways. :P

Actually...I think if they gave beasts 5 wide and allowed the rune to affect greater daemons, beasts could actually stand alone as an army fairly well. Still lacking flaming attacks, but aside from that, it wouldn't be in too bad shape.