PDA

View Full Version : darn monsters err daemons! huh?



Gharof von Carstein
23-02-2009, 22:30
oke so here is something fun. greater daemons count as monster characters. so are they effected by spells that specifically target monsters. like for instance, the beast cowers? if so this would be a good way to stop a bloodthirster in his tracks :) id like to know for sure though. so how does this work? what effects them as being monsters and what doesnt?

Bac5665
23-02-2009, 22:35
That would be correct if you read the DoC book and care about game balance, BUT...

GW, in the most recent BRB FAQ ruled that GDs aren't monsters, they simply use some monstrous rules. Things that affect monsters have no effect against GDs, including beasts cowers. Its one of the worst GW rulings, and it contradicts the DoC book directly, but it is part of the game, like it or not.

Neckutter
23-02-2009, 22:51
GW making ruling that directly go against RAW??

That hasnt happened since... when was the last FAQ released?

but yeah, the Daemon FAQ is full of holes. the DE FAQ is full of BS, and the WoC FAQ is full of junk as well. nifty, huh? i cant wait till the LM FAQ comes out.

and lastly, greater daemons arent affected by things that affect monsters. i think the line from the GW FAQ writer was "just because they are monstrous characters, but dont follow all of the monster rules"
:wtf:

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
23-02-2009, 23:27
I don't know why you think they should follow the monster rules. They are "monstrous," yes, but they are not monsters in the sense that they are not unintelligent beasts.

kramplarv
24-02-2009, 00:02
and besides, the FAQ nerfed the DoC.. not boosted. Why?
no more wolf hunts on 9+... Instead a unseen lurker at 10+ or 11+
and in addition, Lre of beasts are a better choice than lore of shadows for lvl2 dudes...

soo, no more magical charges with that nasty Bloodthirster.

Nurgling Chieftain
24-02-2009, 01:49
They are "monstrous," yes, but they are not monsters in the sense that they are not unintelligent beasts.Neither are Star Dragons, which are still affected. Maybe if they'd just gone off the leadership stat, it would make more sense.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
24-02-2009, 04:35
Dragons are a lot more bestial than daemons, which are not even made of matter.

Thurizdan
24-02-2009, 05:24
They are if they've materialised on the human plane. They are probably made of an amalgam of ectoplasmic matter or something that they make into a body the moment they manifest. A metaphor cannot cut you in half and take your skull.

havoc626
24-02-2009, 06:07
Monsterous characters are not monsters. No idea where GW got that one from, as I thought it would have been a good downside to having one.

What do you think the chances are of ebing able to convince someone that they aren't characters either?

HE:"I challenge your Bloodthurster (That I know has flaming attacks) with my Prince (That has Dragon Armour)."

DoC:"No, he can't accept. Just because he's a monsterous character, doesn't mean that he's a character or a monster."

WTF?

Nurgling Chieftain
24-02-2009, 07:01
Dragons are a lot more bestial than daemons...No, they're not. :eyebrows:

nosferatu1001
24-02-2009, 10:41
fluff wise all dragons should be characters, given their age, wisdom and intelligence. They aren't dumb beasts!

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
24-02-2009, 10:46
I didn't say they were dumb, but they are beasts. Daemons are creatures of emotion made real, and their bodies are made up of Warp flesh, which is where their magical Ward save comes from.

Neckutter
24-02-2009, 10:52
fluff wise all dragons should be characters

they are characters. they take up a hero slot.

except for Karl Franz's dragon. he is a cheater.

nosferatu1001
24-02-2009, 12:02
Karl Franz is a cheater in general though... ;)

Nurgling Chieftain
24-02-2009, 19:02
I don't know why you think they should follow the monster rules. They are "monstrous," yes, but they are not monsters in the sense that they are not unintelligent beasts.
I didn't say they were dumb, but they are beasts. Daemons are creatures of emotion made real, and their bodies are made up of Warp flesh, which is where their magical Ward save comes from.You did say they were dumb, by direct implication from the above. Besides, your entire ARGUMENT falls apart once you take the "dumb" out of it, anyway.

Being creatures of "emotion made real" makes Daemons extremely bestial in the case of the Khornate ones - arguably more so than any merely normal beast could ever attain.

Lijacote
24-02-2009, 20:18
Daemons aren't animals. Dragons are. Humans aren't.

/canofworms

kramplarv
24-02-2009, 23:58
Humans are animals. A higly sophisticated animal. But animal nonetheless.

Neckutter
25-02-2009, 00:49
and while humans are animals, and sometimes act like beasts, humans are not beasts. :)

ok, now what was the original intent of this thread? :P

TroyJPerez
25-02-2009, 06:23
You know I never thought of it till I read this forum... but Dragons in all armies accept for Orcs and Goblin (which techically isn't a dragon its a wyvern) take up an extra hero slot. Kinda makes me wonder if the argument that they arn't monsters could be true. They might be characters, lol. Someone should argue this, lol.

Bac5665
25-02-2009, 14:09
It would depend on the wording in the AB. If it says that the dragon takes the slot, than you have a good argument. If it says that a character riding a dragon takes up an extra slot, than its the hero that simply has two slots, and the dragon is still just a mount.

the_picto
25-02-2009, 14:22
Does this ruling apply to monster characters from other books? I ask because that would mean that a treeman would cower while a treeman ancient would not. Which seems dumb.

Harwammer
25-02-2009, 14:32
Greater daemons aren't monsters, they are just misunderstood.

Bac5665
25-02-2009, 14:59
Does this ruling apply to monster characters from other books? I ask because that would mean that a treeman would cower while a treeman ancient would not. Which seems dumb.

Cause that's the only part of the rule that's dumb...:(