PDA

View Full Version : Greater Deamons affected by "The Beast Cowers"



smed9
21-01-2009, 17:24
Hi

Can any of you tell me if the Great Unclean One or any Greater Deamons are affected by the Beast Cowers spell from the Lore of Beasts.

It says this can cast on any ememy cavalry unit, swarm, chariot or a single ridden or unridden monster anywhere on the battlefield.

It also says on page 7 that "Mighty Deamon Princes of Chaos are so large and powerful that they follow the rules for monsters"

This all comes about 'cause when I was playing a Deamons army with my Wood Elves I wanted to cast the Beast Cowers on the "mighty slug". To which my opponent said that you couldn't as it was mightier than a monster and as such wouldn't be affected. :rolleyes: He also mumbled about something in an FAQ, which I can't find.:(

So I thought I'd throw it out to the mighty Warseer minds and see what comes back.

Atrahasis
21-01-2009, 17:26
The FAQ is on the GW website.

No beast cowers on Monstrous Characters.

smed9
21-01-2009, 17:32
Pray point me in the right direction. As i'd looked and not found anything.

ElvenGravy
21-01-2009, 17:51
part 2 FAQ
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2220025_Warhammer_FAQ__PART2_Jan_2009.pdf

page4

greater demons, treeman ancients, shaggoth champions are characters not monsters even though they use some monster rules.

there goes my "collar of zorga" trick where monsters only hit the bearer on 6's:(

Nurgling Chieftain
21-01-2009, 18:05
The FAQ is here: http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2220025_Warhammer_FAQ__PART2_Jan_2009.pdf

The particular answer being referenced is on page 4, left column, near the bottom.

alextroy
22-01-2009, 01:18
The real problem here is that the FAQ says that monsterous characters are not monsters, while the Daemons of Chaos Armybook specficially states that the Greater Daemons are monsters. Now which is right, the FAQ of the Armybook?

Fellblade
22-01-2009, 02:09
In general, Army Book overrules Rulebook. The newest FAQ would seem to imply they don't count as monsters, but its very rare for the rulebook to trump an army book.

Voss
22-01-2009, 02:18
FAQs always win- answering specific questions is what they are *for*.
The rulebook isn't even involved in this particular issue in any case.

GodlessM
22-01-2009, 02:35
If the army book specifically states it then they are.

Solasun
22-01-2009, 04:16
They take up character spots in the army book (Characters) and have monster characterstics (Monsterous.)

No Beast Cowers for you, FAQ is clarification of Army Book's intent for GD/DP.

Fellblade
22-01-2009, 06:02
The rulebook isn't even involved in this particular issue in any case.
The FAQ is for the rulebook, not the army books, note the title of the document:
Warhammer Rulebook - Errata and FAQs
Part 2
Can't be much more clear than that.

Nurgling Chieftain
22-01-2009, 06:20
...while the Daemons of Chaos Armybook specficially states that the Daemon Princes are monsters.Where does it say that? I can't find it under Daemon Prince, the army list entry, nor the army special rules.

Necromancy Black
22-01-2009, 06:20
The FAQ is for the rulebook, not the army books, note the title of the document:
Warhammer Rulebook - Errata and FAQs
Part 2
Can't be much more clear than that.

Your right, it is a BRB FAQ. It deals with a spell found int eh BRB and states that that spell does not work on monstrous creatures that are also characters, listing Greater Daemons as an example.

Neckutter
22-01-2009, 07:15
the FAQ wins, because of the example they give. read the faq.

Djekar
22-01-2009, 07:36
This made me shed a man tear, because serious - GD's needed to get more powerful, right?!

~Pear

Nekrodamus
22-01-2009, 08:18
As I have written in another thread allready, the Deamon players never feared Beast Cowers:

The opponent had to choose a "less good" lore (if available for him at all), had to be lucky to get this specific spell and then had to pass the typically high number of DD and/or MR of an average Deamon army.

But the Deamons loved this Lore for themselves (one or two Herald(s) of Tzeentch on chariot with Master of Sorcery and Spellbreaker, the first one allways becomes the BSB) to speed up their GDs and let them do flank/rear charges with Wolf Hunts, which is no longer possible now too.

In fact Deamons got nerfed.

Wapniak
22-01-2009, 17:08
Yup, I've used this "trick" a lot. Demons = Nerfed. Isn't it good? Why everyone mourn. ;) By the way, Collar of zorga never worked on GDs... It was in previous FAQu's.

Lord Dan
22-01-2009, 19:20
Who cares if the army book says they're monsters? The FAQ clearly explains that they are not affected by the beast cowers- by name! You can't get more force-fed than that.

alextroy
22-01-2009, 23:06
Where does it say that? I can't find it under Daemon Prince, the army list entry, nor the army special rules.

Whoops! Meant Greater Daemons, not Daemon Prince.

itcamefromthedeep
23-01-2009, 15:12
I'm just happy that Greater Demons are now Unit Strength 3.

They're not monsters, so they use the ogre entry, as noted on page 71 of the BRB.

The FAQ states that normally the "monsteryness" of a character is limited to movement and their inability to join units. Since they didn't mention unit strength there, and there's no indication that Greater Demons are an exception, they weigh in at Unit Strength 3.

moose
23-01-2009, 15:40
Greater Daemons are on 50x50mm bases, and have 5+ wounds hence they are US5.

They certainly have the ability to negate ranks.

Moose

EDIT: Just read what you mean in the brb...and noooooooooo couldn't they just nerf the bloodthirster :(

SimpleSquid
23-01-2009, 20:58
Greater daemons are unit strength 3?! Ok I've been playing that wrong then. Do GD's also have 360 line of sight like a character on foot, or do they only see in the front arc?

nosferatu1001
23-01-2009, 22:20
Sigh.

1) Ogre sized models, i.e. 40x40 mm, are US3.

GD are on 50mm bases, and are therefore monsters for the purpose of determining US. They therefore have a US = starting number of wounds. remember the character section tells us "they take on some rules from other sections - this is one of those rules.

2) Characters on foot do not have 360 LOS - all units, and I mean ALL UNITS, have a 90 degree front arc LOS by default. Only if they are called skirmishers or inherit the skirmish rule by being a US1 model do they gain a 360 LOS.

"Man sized" is not used any longer to determine LOS

sulla
24-01-2009, 02:05
Sigh.

1) Ogre sized models, i.e. 40x40 mm, are US3.

GD are on 50mm bases, and are therefore monsters for the purpose of determining US. They therefore have a US = starting number of wounds. remember the character section tells us "they take on some rules from other sections - this is one of those rules.



Sigh.

"It should be noted that while Greater Daemons (i.e.Bloodthirsters, Lords of Change, Great Unclean Ones and Keepers of Secrets) and Daemon Princes are characters, they are also monsters, as defined by the game, and as such, may never join units." DoC, Pg30 Daemonic Characters section.

So, GD and Daemon princes are actually monsters for every circumstance in the game except things GW have said they are not counted for in the beasts and the latest FAQ. They are not just monsters for US or movement purposes. (Although they pretty much are thanks to the FAQ.) This would all be so much simpler if they would just errata the Above GD=monsters section instead of contradicting it in Faqs.

itcamefromthedeep
24-01-2009, 03:51
"A. No, they are characters and not monsters, even
though they share some rules with monsters
(normally this is limited to the way they move and
their inability to join units)."

The FAQ makes no exception for Unit Strength. They're not monsters for Unit Strength purposes.

The Unit Strength entry on page 71 classes 40mm and 50mm bases as Unit Strength 3 unless it's a monster, which the FAQ clearly says it isn't. Note that, for example, Ogre Hunters use 50mm square bases.

Devon Harmon
24-01-2009, 04:08
Page 71 classifies models on 40/50mm bases that are up to & including Ogre sized as US 3.

Page 71 classifies models larger than Ogre sized on any base/no base as having US = to starting wounds.

Greater Daemons are larger than Ogre sized.

Nurgling Chieftain
24-01-2009, 08:24
The FAQ makes no exception for Unit Strength.It does, however, make a clear exception for specific codex rulings by saying "normally".

Storak
24-01-2009, 09:26
Page 71 classifies models on 40/50mm bases that are up to & including Ogre sized as US 3.

Page 71 classifies models larger than Ogre sized on any base/no base as having US = to starting wounds.

Greater Daemons are larger than Ogre sized.

wow, this is a major misrepresentation of the wording of the book.

it says: MONSTER larger than Ogre sized on any base/no base as having US = to starting wounds.

and the rulebook says, that if a unique creature is an exception, then it will be clearly specified in that unit s special rules...

the FAQ says:


they are characters and not monsters, even though they share some rules with monsters (normally this is limited to the way they move and their inability to join units).

but well, a no-monster US3 GD will still be very good at hunting warmachines...

PS: i wouldn t argue that they are bigger than ogres. if they are, they wouldn t fit ANY US category...

Necromancy Black
24-01-2009, 10:21
See, the problem is this: "they are characters and not monsters, even though they share some rules with monsters (normally this is limited to the way they move and their inability to join units)."

They are not monsters even though they share some rules. And this is normally limited to movement and such.

WTF?!?! so what are the exceptions?!? FFS, just erreta Beasts Cowers to not affect chartacters. Or make it so it can, that'll make everything better!!!

nosferatu1001
24-01-2009, 11:32
but well, a no-monster US3 GD will still be very good at hunting warmachines...

PS: i wouldn t argue that they are bigger than ogres. if they are, they wouldn t fit ANY US category...

So although you are told they share some rulesyou have decided that the rule for determining US is not one of them? Why have you decided that? Were you told to do so?

If not then surely they still follow the US rules until told otherwise...

Shamfrit
24-01-2009, 11:47
This is funny, people trying to convince other people that a model that is THAT big is US3?

A model that had 5 wounds, Large Target Status, and is on a 50mm base, thus it's unit strength is defined by the wounds it has...like any other non monster model on a larger base, such as a chariot.

This is plain and simple wishful thinking.

Not to mention, Daemon Princes are US3, and Greater Daemons are clearly bigger, more wound laden and larger in every way than a Daemon Prince.

But please, do continue...

Storak
24-01-2009, 13:13
So although you are told they share some rulesyou have decided that the rule for determining US is not one of them? Why have you decided that? Were you told to do so?

If not then surely they still follow the US rules until told otherwise...

they are NOT monsters. so yes, i expect to be told pretty precisely, what other monster rules they follow.


This is funny, people trying to convince other people that a model that is THAT big is US3?

This is funny, people trying to convince other people that a model that is THAT big is not a MONSTER?

Shamfrit
24-01-2009, 13:22
Petty mimicry an argument does not make Storak; give me an example of 50mm+ bases not having US equal to wounds and I might just start partaking in this petty laundering.

itcamefromthedeep
24-01-2009, 13:33
This is funny, people trying to convince other people that a model that is THAT big is US3?
I'm not going to try to justify it based on the model size (though I could have sworn that Carnosaurs deserved to be large targets). US3 Greater Daemons are an absurdity, but then again that's what the FAQ says.

The problem is that "normally", character who are monsters don't follow the normal rules for monsters, such as Unit Strength. Since we have a "normally", and we see no reason why Greater Daemons are an exception (they're in the example), they don't get the monster Unit Strength rules.

That's a reason why that FAQ entry is really, really silly. That's one reason why I'm just going to ignore that particular FAQ entirely. The unintended consequences are absurd.

If they wanted to FAQ Beast Cowers not to include characters, that would be perfectly legit (though, a mistake in my humble opinion).

itcamefromthedeep
24-01-2009, 13:35
Petty mimicry an argument does not make Storak; give me an example of 50mm+ bases not having US equal to wounds and I might just start partaking in this petty laundering.
Ogre Hunter, it ranks up with 50mm x 1in Sabretusks and it has 4 wounds.

Slaan weigh in at US3 on a 50x50.

I believe Daemon Princes use a 50x50 and have 4 wounds, with their US3.

I believe Goblin Chariots have 3 Wounds and US4. Some Daemon chariots might have 3 or 5 Wounds, it's been a while.

Stegadons are always US10, which may or may not line up with the Wounds of Steggie+skinks, I can't quite remember.

Harwammer
24-01-2009, 13:39
I've stated my opinion elsewhere;

This started as a nerf to beastmen. The nerf was in their FAQ making 'things like' rune of the true beast not work vs monster characters (i.e. rune of the true beast and beast cowers nerf removed their only real defence vs big nasties). This nerf was made to encourage chaos players to buy all the shiny new daemons rather than continue with their existing chaos army (the warriors get you by list didn't have enough options to build an army out of!)

Unfortunately this nerf has spread like nurgle's most terrible contangion to all other armies with beast lore or items similar to RotTB (zorga collar).

My nerf theory has a competing theory.

GW are 1) too stupid to realise a model explicitly stated as being a monster IS a monster and thus affected by spells which target monsters and are 2) too stubborn to fix this big old gash they have created.

If GW fix this I'd like them to errata 4-wide to 5-wide too, but honestly that won't happen till a new, bland BoC list is released a la WoC.

bitter, moi? :D

Storak
24-01-2009, 13:46
just to make my position clear:

GW simply should never use a RaW approach in FAQs. they are the designers of the game!

what they say, should always be RaI. and game balance should be THE deciding factor in any changes made!

the change to daemons is simply stupid. and it can be seen in many stupid consequences.

Harwammer
24-01-2009, 14:00
just to make my position clear:

GW simply should never use a RaW approach in FAQs. they are the designers of the game!

what they say, should always be RaI. and game balance should be THE deciding factor in any changes made!

the change to daemons is simply stupid. and it can be seen in many stupid consequences.

Agreed.

I think their 'RAW' policy is so a player with the FAQ should technically play the army in the same fashion as one without (assuming the player without the FAQ understands GWs crazy rules).

However, since they include errata, and are pretty inconsistent with how strictly they enforce the RAW, they may as well just use it as an opportunity to rewrite the rules properly.


Personally, while I understand the importance for some level of balance, I don't mind the idea of tiered armies too much; not everyone plays through every video game on easy mode, right? However, there should be enough balance that different tier armies have a decent chance against each other, even if it isn't equal.

Shamfrit
24-01-2009, 14:55
There's one difference with the Daemon Prince, in that they're both on 50mm bases but, despite having more than 3 wounds, the Daemon Prince is explicately stated as being US3.

The Greater Daemon isn't, and it's on a 50mm base, and it has 5 wounds...

It's a more natural conclusion to give the GD US5, than it is to rewrite the obvious based on something inconclusive.

Although ironically, Daemon Princes would be slightly more viable than Greater Daemons now :skull:

itcamefromthedeep
24-01-2009, 15:52
There's one difference with the Daemon Prince, in that they're both on 50mm bases but, despite having more than 3 wounds, the Daemon Prince is explicately stated as being US3.

The Greater Daemon isn't, and it's on a 50mm base, and it has 5 wounds...

It's a more natural conclusion to give the GD US5, than it is to rewrite the obvious based on something inconclusive.
Greater Demons were absolutely intended to be monsters for unit strength purposes. They were intended to be monsters for all purposes. The Daemon book explicitly calls them monsters, and there's no argument to be had there.

The FAQ changed that.

The Unit Strength debate is stupid, we all know that Treeman Ancients were not intended to have less Unit Strength then a normal Treeman, and we all know that Kholek Suneater should not have less Unit Strength than a normal Shaggoth.

I'm not arguing that Greater Daemons should have Unit Strength 3, I'm arguing that the FAQ should be tossed out because the FAQ requires that Greater Daemons have Unit Strength 3, along with a number of equally absurd consequences.

We all know what they were trying to do, but they did it wrong. Spectacularly wrong. They shouldn't have even tried, but they wanted to slip a blatant change to the rules through ninja-style. I say scrap that FAQ entry, house rule that FAQ out of your local gaming group, and forget it because it's dumb.

It directly contradicts at least one army book (Daemons of Chaos),

it's badly thought out (Unit Strength),

it manufactures further FAQ issues ("Are characters who are cavalry affected by Beast Cowers?"),

and it implies absurd consequences (models can't be more then one unit type, so characters can't get the great weapon bonus because they're not infantry).

This is by far the worst FAQ entry that I have seen GW publish, and my gaming group will be politely ignoring it and using the far simpler and more reasonable alternative:

Models can be both characters and monsters.

EDIT: it is not "by far" the worst FAQ I've seen GW publish. They've done some serious work in the 40k FAQs. This example finished first place by a head.

Devon Harmon
24-01-2009, 17:05
This is by far the worst FAQ entry that I have seen GW publish, and my gaming group will be politely ignoring it and using the far simpler and more reasonable alternative:

Models can be both characters and monsters.



Well spoken!

theunwantedbeing
24-01-2009, 17:13
Models can be both characters and monsters.

Yup, a dragon and rider.
1 model, a character and a monster :P

I dont see the issue personally.
Beast cowers seems silly on something like a greater daemon or daemon prince.
A greater daemon is simply a character so large that it follows a whole heap of rules for being a monster...simple.
It isnt actually a "monster".

Seems pretty obvious that's the way it was intended to be.
People seem annoyed at this as its giving daemons yet another advantage...well tough, use beast cowers on something else like the skulltakers juggernaught.
And using magical resistance isnt a valid argument as the bloodthirster has magical resistance.

sulla
24-01-2009, 17:55
I dont see the issue personally.
Beast cowers seems silly on something like a greater daemon or daemon prince.
A greater daemon is simply a character so large that it follows a whole heap of rules for being a monster...simple.
It isnt actually a "monster".

Seems pretty obvious that's the way it was intended to be.
People seem annoyed at this as its giving daemons yet another advantage...

I think people (or at least me) are mad that the daemon army book specifically states that "Greater daemons and Daemon Princes are characters, they are also monsters as defined by the game, and may never therefore join units."...

And then an FAQ goes and makes it that apparently they are not actually monsters at all, but only nebulously obey some monster rules...:rolleyes: It's pretty obvious that they want to implement some 'monstrous character' rule but at present, they are the only ones who know how it works because they haven't published it but enforce it in their FAQ's.

Necromancy Black
24-01-2009, 22:32
itcamefromthedeep, you can argue the wording is crap but you can not argue that a GD is definitly US 3. The woridng to the FAQ is completely ambiguous. They only give one clear example where they are not monsters and that is for spells that are monsters. Anything else they say is "normally" the case, like how they foll0w the rules for movement (WTF? so Beasts Cowers should work!!!) and not joining units (again, WTF?). It also says they are not monsters even though the share some of the rules. Which rules? The only examples above are the "normal" cases.

I agree that was a really dumb and badly written answer. My advice would be for the ideas to erreta Beast's Cower to not affect characters if that's waht they want, or just let them affect characters that are monsters like the RAW goes.

I've half a mind to convince my local club to ignore this single question in the FAQ.

itcamefromthedeep
25-01-2009, 19:20
Seems pretty obvious that's the way it was intended to be.
What? When the Daemon specifically and explicity states that the model follows the rules for a monster, I take that as a clue that the model is supposed to be a monster.


well tough, use beast cowers on something else like the skulltakers juggernaught.
Ahh, but Skulltaker mounted on a Juggernaut is a character, not cavalry.

The Beast Cowers won't work on him either.

itcamefromthedeep
25-01-2009, 19:33
I agree that was a really dumb and badly written answer. My advice would be for the ideas to erreta Beast's Cower to not affect characters if that's waht they want, or just let them affect characters that are monsters like the RAW goes.
The way to do this would have been to make an errata for The Beast Cowers to say that it does not affect characters.

That would have been kosher. Out of character, but fair game.

However, GW has a policy of not actually changing rules if it can possibly be avoided, because otherwise it confuses people who don't have the most up-to-date errata. They want to stick to clarifying rules issues.

Generally speaking, that's not a bad policy.

What GW is trying to do here is eat their cake and still have it. They wanted to make a blatant change to the rules disguised as clarifying an issue. As far as I'm concerned, it backfired.

nosferatu1001
26-01-2009, 09:00
What they have done is made an errata affecting Characters, rather than making individual erratas for each and every item, e.g RoTN, Collar of Zorga etc. This makes it a lot easier when armybooks / BRB change, as you only need to look at one entry in one place.

HOwever, they should have been more precise and not said "they arent monsters" - instead said "spells which target monsters do not effect characters" - more akin to the BoC FAQ. This then means while they ARE stil monsters they have a special immunity.