PDA

View Full Version : Beast Cowers vs. Greater Daemon



Malcador
21-10-2008, 07:26
Hi all,

The title sums it up, is a greater demon, or any other monstrous character like a treeman ancient, affected by the Lore of Beasts spell "the beast cowers". The description states that it affects both ridden and unridden monsters. Is a Greater Daemon a monster as well as a character, and thus affected, or only a character, and thus unaffected.

Thanks in advance,
Malcador

Wadders
21-10-2008, 08:00
It is a Monster and a character, I believe there is a little snippet in the Daemons book to confirm so.

Thus it is affected as normal.

Braad
21-10-2008, 09:04
No, a creature like a greater daemon is a character that follows 'some' rules for monsters.

Since it only follows some rules (regarding moving and shooting, I think, but it is not specified which ones exactly), it is not in fact a monster, and therefore it is not affected by spells like 'the beast cowers' or items like 'the collar of zorga'. As a character it is supposed to overcome such things that would affect an animal.

I believe this is FAQ'ed somewhere, but don't know where from the top of my mind.

kroq'gar
21-10-2008, 09:22
Its a monster. Zorgags coller forces it to hit on 6's and beast covers does its thing.

GranFarfar
21-10-2008, 14:50
Yeah, I seconded Braad. I think GW FAQ both beast covers and collar of zorgags to not working against greater deamon and "monster characters", or whatever to call them. But I can't seem to find the FaQ on the gw page.

Harwammer
21-10-2008, 15:00
This calls into question does wolf hunts work on greater daemons?

I've heard of people casting wolf hunts on their blood thirster, but then claiming beast cowers doesn't work on it. Talk about best of both worlds!

EvC
21-10-2008, 15:15
Braad is talking out of the wrong orifice today (un)fortunately ;)

The basic premise that a Greater Daemon isn't a "proper" monster could not be more false. It is explicitly a monster- the Daemon army book goes to great pains to say so. It follows all the rules for monsters, therefore. It is a character as well, but that doesn't mean it isn't a monster.

The Beasts of Chaos FAQ throws a spanner in the works by saying something like "things like the Rune of the True Beast do not affect characters", but a) it's a stupid answer and b) there's no way to know what counts as "things like this". It is best ignored, and just treat the rules as they are clearly written: Greater Daemons are monsters, and get all the positive and negative effects from being so. As Harwammer says, it's funny how the same Daemon player who whines that they shouldn't be affected by Beast Cowers will happily whack them into combat wiht Beast Hunts.

ZiggyQubert
21-10-2008, 16:15
The Beasts of Chaos FAQ throws a spanner in the works by saying something like "things like the Rune of the True Beast do not affect characters", but a) it's a stupid answer and b) there's no way to know what counts as "things like this". It is best ignored, and just treat the rules as they are clearly written: Greater Daemons are monsters, and get all the positive and negative effects from being so. As Harwammer says, it's funny how the same Daemon player who whines that they shouldn't be affected by Beast Cowers will happily whack them into combat wiht Beast Hunts.

Actuly the BOC FAQ, is verry explisit, it says nothing like what you mention above, in fack it says


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 isnít. 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.

Thus characters that are also monseter only count as characters, it's a stoopid ruling but there it is.

Braad
21-10-2008, 20:22
Precisely! BoC FAQ, that's the one I meant.

Hmmm, well if the new daemon book explicitly says they are monsters and not characters then I would say: yes, beast cowers (and collar etc.) work on greater daemons.

But otherwise, if not mention, I would still stick to the BoC book FAQ, as that is AFAIK the only actual mentioning of how whe should treat a monstrous character in such circumstances.

Sadly, I only have the old hordes of chaos and there greater daemons are just monster sized characters. Can't have it all...

SolarHammer
21-10-2008, 20:28
A character can be a monster just as easily as a character can be infantry just as easily as a character can be cavalry just as easily as a character can be a chariot.

"Character" is not a unit type, it's a set of special rules that may apply to any unit type.

GW screwed up the Beasts FAQ, and it's a crap answer that applies to a single crap item. I wouldn't look beyond that item for the implications of that FAQ. Once the Beasts book is gone, the rules will be clear again.

Chaos Undecided
21-10-2008, 20:57
Completely laughable as it seem (millenia old avatar of chaos god versus stinky little greenskin with spikey collar) there doesnt seem anyway around it.

None of the army books seem to explicitly say any monster is as such, it just seems purely based on the BRB saying any creature on a base larger than 40x40 qualifies as a monster. Unless its a general assumption that large target = monster. Maybe warhammer army books should specifically list unit types like 40k codex do.

Harwammer
21-10-2008, 21:27
"Character" is not a unit type, it's a set of special rules that may apply to any unit type.
Page 6 and 7 of the rule book disagrees with you. 'Characters' is listed under the title unit types.



GW screwed up the Beasts FAQ, and it's a crap answer that applies to a single crap item. I wouldn't look beyond that item for the implications of that FAQ. Once the Beasts book is gone, the rules will be clear again.

The answer used in the BoC FAQ is actually copied and pasted from another FAQ which was around BEFORE the new DoC book(maybe the direwolf one?). As such it was written for HoC greater daemons, then falsely applied to DoC ones. Considering the FAQ was released a couple of days after the DoC book I have the feeling whoever wrote the BoC FAQ didn't check the new daemons book...

If the GW FAQ wasn't official it would be incorrect, "For example, when the rules refer to cavalry units, all troops that fall under the category of cavalry must follow those rules". A GD is a monster, it is affected by anything that affects monsters.

TBH I think the BoC was a bodge job, largely just copied off direwolf. It was mainly in existance to invalidate most of the list. If I was cynical, this was possibly in an effort to encourage current chaos players to migrate to the newest book, DoC (thus encourageing sales), knowing they'd likely also snap up WoC and BoC when their respective new books were out.

Drow__Warrior
21-10-2008, 21:45
Here's my personal take on it.

GDs are beasts, and therefore affected by everything affecting beasts. They are also characters and affected by anything affecting characters, good or bad. I'd pile treemen anciencts, and shaggoth lords, and doombulls in the same boat.


.

skank
21-10-2008, 21:46
Yeah, characters are a unit type.

The only time you get a character/anything, is with the GDs.

SolarHammer
21-10-2008, 22:30
What about a character who is infantry?

What about a character who is cavalry?

:confused:

Can you not cast Wolf Hunts on a mounted character because he is not cavalry?

Shamfrit
21-10-2008, 22:55
It's been played as yes, Beast Cowers affects GD at tournaments sanctioned by GW.

You can take that as proof enough that it works, without going into the semantics of what is or what isn't.

Harwammer
21-10-2008, 23:35
What about a character who is infantry?

What about a character who is cavalry?

:confused:

Can you not cast Wolf Hunts on a mounted character because he is not cavalry?

I don't think unit types are neccesarily mutually exclusive. Indeed the description of characters specifically says a model can be a character and infantry, a character and cavalry, be a character in a chariot or on a monster. It also says a character can be a monster, but I think (maybe?) the 7th ed. and BoC FAQ changed this to some characters follow movement rules of monsters but don't count as monsters.

txamil
21-10-2008, 23:54
It's been played as yes, Beast Cowers affects GD at tournaments sanctioned by GW.


Which GTs? Are you 100% sure on this? Is it in the pack?

Nighthawke
22-10-2008, 00:02
im pretty sure to as my mate lost in a tourny as his blood thirster kept getting the beast cowers cast on it so was ripped to shreds in comabt
its pretty easy to work out
does it sayits a monster? if yes
does it say that it is exempt from any of the normal monster rule? if no
then it is a monster affected by these spells
also the bretonains can get a killing blow for monsters and im guessing this would workso these spells however silly it may seem still work

Shamfrit
22-10-2008, 00:12
Greater Daemon is explicitly stated as being a monster, regardless of what the Beasts FAQ states about a similar but different item on a similar but different model; the Beast Cowers works on Greater Daemons, and it's been done so in tournaments, not an official ruling, because it's blatant.

Harwammer
22-10-2008, 00:37
Greater Daemon is explicitly stated as being a monster, regardless of what the Beasts FAQ states about a similar but different item on a similar but different model; the Beast Cowers works on Greater Daemons, and it's been done so in tournaments, not an official ruling, because it's blatant.

So, basically, whoever wrote the BoC didn't check the new DoC book when they ripped their FAQ answer off the interwebs?

SolarHammer
22-10-2008, 00:42
Yes that is correct.

Which is why it's a garbage answer, and I can't wait until the BoC book is redone so that FAQ is gone along with the unnecessary confusion it causes.

EvC
22-10-2008, 10:14
Actuly the BOC FAQ, is verry explisit, it says nothing like what you mention above, in fack it says

Err, back in the real world where people can read, what I said was pretty much exactly what you quoted:
"things like the Rune of the True Beast do not affect characters" vs
"A monstrous character is assumed to have the strength of mind and willpower to resist these sorts of things"
Ok I said "things like this" rather than "these sorts of things". Huge difference :rolleyes:

skank
22-10-2008, 10:36
Harwammer:"Indeed the description of characters specifically says a model can be a character and infantry, a character and cavalry, be a character in a chariot or on a monster. It also says a character can be a monster, but I think (maybe?) the 7th ed. and BoC FAQ changed this to some characters follow movement rules of monsters but don't count as monsters."

Just out of interest, where is it in the BRB that says a model can be a character and infantry/cavalry? If you are refering to the movement section of the 'characters' section it says no such thing.
A character mounted on a chariot/monster is not a character and a chariot/monster, they can be seperated.

Atrahasis
22-10-2008, 10:42
Are you honestly arguing that a character on foot is not infantry (and can therefore never enter a building) or that a character on a cavalry mount is not cavalry (and can therefore never have Wolf Hunts cast on him)?

StarFyre
22-10-2008, 11:24
GW sanctioned tournaments here as well, it does affect them since they are affected like characters AND affected like a monster. (they are characters in that they can lead, but they are still monsters regardless)...

Whether it is written like that, that is how GW rules it since the release of the DoC book....

makes more sense that way...at least they aren't unstoppable.

Sanjay

skank
22-10-2008, 11:30
Atrahasis: Well yes. We play the unit types as mutually exlusive in my group and this seems bourne out by the rules (as per page 6/7).
Characters can 'count as' infantry for movement into buildings but that does not mean they are both character and infantry unit types.

In this way i would say a shaggoth champion (in BOC rules, i don't know specific rules of WOC) would be a character not a monster dispite 'counting as' a monster in terms of it's movement and certain others.
Solves problems like can a Shaggoth champ join units or not (characters can, monsters can't)

GD are a different case as they are stated as both monster and character in their armybook.

Harwammer
22-10-2008, 12:05
Harwammer:"Indeed the description of characters specifically says a model can be a character and infantry, a character and cavalry, be a character in a chariot or on a monster. It also says a character can be a monster, but I think (maybe?) the 7th ed. and BoC FAQ changed this to some characters follow movement rules of monsters but don't count as monsters."

Just out of interest, where is it in the BRB that says a model can be a character and infantry/cavalry? If you are refering to the movement section of the 'characters' section it says no such thing.
A character mounted on a chariot/monster is not a character and a chariot/monster, they can be seperated.

Under 'Characters' sub heading of 'Unit Types' page 7. It seems to me many people skip over these rules ;)

Edit: oops you've already found that part! sorry :D

Shamfrit
22-10-2008, 12:15
A unit champion is NOT a character, where in the hell did that idea come from?

skank
22-10-2008, 13:11
If you are refering to shaggoth champion, its a character from the BOC book.

Malcador
24-10-2008, 16:37
So a lot of discussion, but what is the answer?

BOC FAQ says no, GW at GT says yes?

(Yay for warhammer net-speak)

SolarHammer
24-10-2008, 17:02
BoC FAQ says no, GW at GT says yes?

The BoC FAQ does not say no.
It has been over-interpreted by some to mean no, but it answers a totally different question (that never should have been asked in the first place).