PDA

View Full Version : skaven 13th spell



PeG
18-11-2009, 09:57
According to what I am told the skaven 13th spell only works on US1 infantry. If all models in the unit are killed they are replaced by clan rats.

Does this mean that a mounted character joining the unit completely protects it against this spell or can skaven still cast it for the damage effect?

I am assuming that they cant get any clan rats since the spell doesnt work on the mounted character and therefore they will not be able to wipe out the unit.

Wednesday Friday Addams
18-11-2009, 09:59
According to what I am told the skaven 13th spell only works on US1 infantry. If all models in the unit are killed they are replaced by clan rats.

Does this mean that a mounted character joining the unit completely protects it against this spell or can skaven still cast it for the damage effect?

I am assuming that they cant get any clan rats since the spell doesnt work on the mounted character and therefore they will not be able to wipe out the unit.

Infantry unit.

Nocculum
18-11-2009, 10:05
If they wipe out the infantry unit and leave the character, they still get the clanrats. Which is an amusing thought, the Commander watching his minions warp around him, only to be then dragged to his own doom from atop his horse :D

T10
18-11-2009, 10:47
According to what I am told the skaven 13th spell only works on US1 infantry. If all models in the unit are killed they are replaced by clan rats.

Does this mean that a mounted character joining the unit completely protects it against this spell or can skaven still cast it for the damage effect?

I am assuming that they cant get any clan rats since the spell doesnt work on the mounted character and therefore they will not be able to wipe out the unit.

As W. F. Addams points out, it affects "infantry". So it will affect Ogres and Elves the same.

A mounted character in a unit of infantry? The rules do not take into account hybrid unit types like this, so you're left to coming up with your own solution.

Personally I think the spell will affect the infantry models in the unit but not the mounted character. Thus the spell can wipe out the rank-and-file, but you won't get to replace the unit with clanrats since you can't wipe out the whole unit.

-T10

Wednesday Friday Addams
18-11-2009, 11:01
The way I saw it was a unit with a mounted hero counts as infantry and everything just goes from there with the hero being added to the wound total.

PeG
18-11-2009, 11:35
Three very different anaswers which probably means that we need to put our hopes to the FAQ............

nosferatu1001
18-11-2009, 14:01
T10 - an infantry unit with a mounted model in there is still an Infantry unit - it still pursues as infantry, etc.

It is therefore a legal target for the spell.

You then roll 4D6 and it turns that many models in the unit into CLanrats. There is no protection for any character, mounted or otherwise, at that point. If you do enough wounds the character will be removed.

Atrahasis
18-11-2009, 14:21
There's no such thing as "pursuing as infantry".

Are you suggesting that an infantry unit containing a mounted character can enter buildings?

The spell is woefully unclear due to the il-defined nature of mixed units.

nosferatu1001
18-11-2009, 14:26
I meant they pursue 2D6 instead of 3D6 - an infantry movement speed

The character joins the unit and does not make it a non-infantry unit in doing so. The spell can target the unit, and beyond that it removes models - not caring if you are infantry or not.

danny-d-b
18-11-2009, 14:28
yep but then how far does that go?

I mean lizzardmen and there mixed units (skink and krox, stegs in units) mess completely with that theary

then again I'm not a skaven player and very rarely play them so I don't care
I'm prob going to end up scrolling it if cast anyway, in the same way as gate way

nosferatu1001
18-11-2009, 14:34
Skink and Krox are still Infantry, as are TG and Slann. Ogre sized infantry is still infantry.

therat
18-11-2009, 14:57
eh, what about greater daemon sized infantry? :P

danny-d-b
18-11-2009, 15:11
eh, what about greater daemon sized infantry? :P

intresting way to kill a blood thurster

nosferatu1001
18-11-2009, 15:17
They are monsters and therefore not Infantry

Nurgling Chieftain
18-11-2009, 15:57
I really look forward to the first time somebody turns a Slann into a clanrat. :D

RealMikeBob
18-11-2009, 16:03
Haven't read the skaven book but I take it then this spell will also work against things like bat swarms and fell bats, which are specifically listed as being infantry in the VC book (as far as i know the only book to do this) :confused:

Atrahasis
18-11-2009, 16:15
I meant they pursue 2D6 instead of 3D6 - an infantry movement speedAgain, pursuit speed has nothing to do with whether a model/unit is infantry or not.


The character joins the unit and does not make it a non-infantry unit in doing so. This is pure speculation on your part.

jaxom
18-11-2009, 16:16
Haven't read the skaven book but I take it then this spell will also work against things like bat swarms and fell bats, which are specifically listed as being infantry in the VC book (as far as i know the only book to do this) :confused:

Bingo.

I believe that the VC book uses that definition in order to handle questions about IoN. The side effect is to make those units valid targets for the 13th Spell.

As mentioned above, RAW a mixed unit which is still infantry does not keep the spell from being cast at it so skrox and slann are valid targets. Mounted characters are up in the air and worse, monstrous mounts are a single model so by that rule you'd eliminate a whole Stegadon+Crew+Priest as a single casualty.

Anyone got a spare sibling that we can sacrifice to Slannesh in hopes of a good FAQ? Bonus points if he or she is a virgin (in hopes of an extra thorough FAQ)!

rtunian
18-11-2009, 17:10
according to the OP, "infantry" status is not the only qualifier. us1 is required as well. a normal cav mounted character is us2, so would not be affected. this would prevent the unit from being wiped out by the spell, because the character is part of the unit while he has joined it.

it is important to know exactly what the spell says. can someone post it?

nosferatu1001
18-11-2009, 17:18
The OP is wrong - I have the boook and wording in front of me, there is no stipulation that it is US1.

Additionally, as I have also already said, the part about Infantry is when you select the target of the spell - the effect is to remove models and there is no requirement that these models are also classified as infantry.



The spell can affect a single Infantry Unit within 24" and......If succesfully cast, the spell turns 4D6 of the targetted units models into Clanrats.....

Bold mine. The first part indicates valid targets - no US requirement, so Ogre sized (large) infantry is a valid target.

The second part states that models are removed. There is no stipulation that only infantry models can be removed, therefore a mounted model can be removed

decker_cky
18-11-2009, 18:18
The OP is wrong - I have the boook and wording in front of me, there is no stipulation that it is US1.

Additionally, as I have also already said, the part about Infantry is when you select the target of the spell - the effect is to remove models and there is no requirement that these models are also classified as infantry.



Bold mine. The first part indicates valid targets - no US requirement, so Ogre sized (large) infantry is a valid target.

The second part states that models are removed. There is no stipulation that only infantry models can be removed, therefore a mounted model can be removed

Quoted for agreement. Everything here is right.

Atrahasis
18-11-2009, 18:33
The second part states that models are removed. There is no stipulation that only infantry models can be removed, therefore a mounted model can be removedYou have yet to show that a unit containing mounted models is an infantry unit.

nosferatu1001
18-11-2009, 18:40
You have yet to show any rules that stop it being an Infantry unit.

decker_cky
18-11-2009, 18:46
It's an infantry unit. It's joined by the mounted character, but the unit is still infantry unless some rule explicitly changes that. The unit wouldn't stop being fear causing if it was joined by a fear causer either.

Nurgling Chieftain
18-11-2009, 19:12
How does the wording compare to something like The Beast Cowers, which targets a cavalry unit (or monster or chariot)? If an unmounted character had joined a unit of knights (maybe one of those M9 vampires) would the unit be untargetable?

Atrahasis
18-11-2009, 19:17
You have yet to show any rules that stop it being an Infantry unit.
It is a unit. This much is obvious.

The unit contains both infantry and cavalry.

You are choosing one of those types as an overriding quality with no supporting rule to aid in the decision.

A unit that contains only infantry is an infantry unit. There is no reason to believe the same for a unit that contains a mix of types.

Lord Dan
18-11-2009, 19:23
A unit that contains only infantry is an infantry unit. There is no reason to believe the same for a unit that contains a mix of types.

For someone who pushes RAW so much, Atrahasis, that doesn't sound anything like RAW...

An infantry unit is an infantry unit.

In order for an infantry unit to stop being an infantry unit, something would have to explicitly state that it is no longer an infantry unit.

Nowhere in the rulebook does it say that an infantry unit stops being an infantry unit when a mounted model joins it.

Therefore...?

nosferatu1001
18-11-2009, 20:00
It is a unit. This much is obvious.

The unit contains both infantry and cavalry.

You are choosing one of those types as an overriding quality with no supporting rule to aid in the decision.

A unit that contains only infantry is an infantry unit. There is no reason to believe the same for a unit that contains a mix of types.

However there is nothing that states it does stop being an Infantry unit - and therefore it is still an infantry unit. You can argue it is also a cavalry unit as well, which would not stop it being targetted by the spell

Tykinkuula
18-11-2009, 20:01
Page 6 says:
Units have different capabilities and are divided into several types. For example, when the rules refer to cavalry units, all troops that fall in the category of cavalry must follow those rules.

A character that joins a unit is a part of that unit.
A mounted character is a cavalry model.
If you target the unit he has joined, the character is a part of your target.
He is not infantry.
Therefore the character is an illegal target.
Therefore you cannot target the unit he's with.

The unit as a whole is neither infantry nor cavalry. It contains two different unit types, and can contain even more (monstrous mounts, for example). As a unit as a whole is the target, it'll always be an illegal target for things that are only allowed to target certain unit types.

Atrahasis
18-11-2009, 20:06
However there is nothing that states it does stop being an Infantry unit - and therefore it is still an infantry unit. You can argue it is also a cavalry unit as well, which would not stop it being targetted by the spell

An infantry unit is defined on page 7 as a "unit of foot troops". A unit that contains cavalry is not a "unit of foot troops", but a unit of mixed type.

stripsteak
18-11-2009, 20:11
yay situation #6784356 where the rules don't define this specific circumstance very well if at all.

Q. If a mounted character joins an infantry unit, can the enemy cast the Beast Cowers on that unit in order to affect the character’s mount?
A. Yes, we think that’s reasonable.

going with that i feel it's safe to think they would find it reasonable that you could also still cast beast cowers on a unit of cav that was joined by a foot character. or a unit of infantry that contains a mounted model can still be targeted by spells that target infantry.

jaxom
18-11-2009, 20:13
Ok, so... IoN behaves differently depending on the nature of the unit that it is being used on. Specifically, it does one thing to Vampires and something different to a unit of Ghouls. I'm not a vampire player, but doesn't it explicitly use the term infantry? Does putting a vampire or a vampire on steed alter the way IoN affects Ghouls?

If the unit is no longer infantry because it has been joined by a Vampire on a steed, should it be affected differently?

Atrahasis
18-11-2009, 20:44
IoN is no help, as it specifically tells us that characters and units must be targeted separately.

Nurgling Chieftain
18-11-2009, 20:49
IoN isn't a good example because it's very explicit about what happens when you cast it on mixed units - you choose which to affect. EDIT: Heh, ninja'd.

Stripstreak's Q&A would support the idea that you can cast it on such a unit, but then the mounted character would be unaffected. I would argue the same thing based on overwhelming precedent; when everything else works a given way, making up new rules for a specific situation that falls just barely out of the normal rules is not something I can support.

Isn't "Character" a unit type in itself?

Atrahasis
18-11-2009, 20:59
Yes, it is.

It should also be noted that monsters are infantry (supported by Shaggoths' and Bone Giants' use of 2 hand weapons).

The fact is that the spell depends on an area of the rules that should be clear cut, but that GW have botched repeatedly.

I'm waiting for the FAQ. Thankfully it should arrive before anyone actually successfully casts the spell...

decker_cky
18-11-2009, 21:59
It should also be noted that monsters are infantry (supported by Shaggoths' and Bone Giants' use of 2 hand weapons).

You need to read the page before the specific weapon rules. It explains why they have that.

Paraelix
18-11-2009, 22:33
T10 - an infantry unit with a mounted model in there is still an Infantry unit - it still pursues as infantry, etc.

It is therefore a legal target for the spell.

You then roll 4D6 and it turns that many models in the unit into CLanrats. There is no protection for any character, mounted or otherwise, at that point. If you do enough wounds the character will be removed.

I know for a fact that this rules trouble came into effect at the GW Managers Tourny here in Aus... They 4+'d as to whether the Slann in the temple guard would be affected. I'd wait for an FAQ ruling... Until then, discuss with your opponent before the beginning of the game.

Lord Dan
19-11-2009, 00:01
I know for a fact that this rules trouble came into effect at the GW Managers Tourny here in Aus... They 4+'d as to whether the Slann in the temple guard would be affected. I'd wait for an FAQ ruling... Until then, discuss with your opponent before the beginning of the game.

Out of curiosity, what happened to the Slaan?

T10
19-11-2009, 07:30
I don't quite see why they would need to do that. The Slann is an infantry model. He's not a monster, just... fat.

-T10

wolf40k
19-11-2009, 07:40
Any thing on a base bigger than the 20mm or 25mm bases are not infantry. They Calvery, beasts, monsters, or chariots.

TheDarkDaff
19-11-2009, 08:43
Any thing on a base bigger than the 20mm or 25mm bases are not infantry. They Calvery, beasts, monsters, or chariots.

Please read the rules before making statements like this. "beasts" isn't a unit type at all and you missed out "characters" as a unit type. Add in that Ogres are infantry and on 40mm bases and you are just completely wrong.

OT - i would play to allow the unit to be affected but not the mounted character. You also wouldn't get the clanrats as the character is still there and was part of the unit. The Slaan is slightly different as we should remove models like shooting where possible. I would really draw the line at someone trying to remove the Slaan as the first model removed from this spell but i can't see anything that limits which models in the unit can be chosen or even who gets to choose.

Of course they may fall back on the monsterous characters precedent and say that as they are characters they are too strong on mind to be affected by the spell. They are characters that only act like infantry/cavalry/whatever unit type you wish to insert for any spell effects.

nosferatu1001
19-11-2009, 10:03
Any thing on a base bigger than the 20mm or 25mm bases are not infantry. They Calvery, beasts, monsters, or chariots.

Beasts is a 40k term, and Page 7, heading "infantry", disagrees with you.

I would suggest reading the rules before posting something in contradiction to every other poster, just to double check.

Atrahasis - monsters are not Infantry, they are a seperate unit classification by themselves

Atrahasis
19-11-2009, 10:36
Atrahasis - monsters are not Infantry, they are a seperate unit classification by themselves
So are characters. That doesn't stop them also being monsters, cavalry, or infantry.

nosferatu1001
19-11-2009, 11:09
And this is allowed for in their definition - unlike Monsters

Termik
19-11-2009, 12:50
Any thing on a base bigger than the 20mm or 25mm bases are not infantry. They Calvery, beasts, monsters, or chariots.

Following this reasoning.... My Warlord with Shieldbearers is inmune to Killing Blow due to he is on a 40 x 40 mm base. Great!!


Joke apart, my rulebook states it clearly= Target Infantry units. Anything held or inside the unite will therefore be affected(and probably a CASUALTY)


Regards.

Atrahasis
19-11-2009, 12:58
An infantry unit is a unit consisting of foot troops. There has not yet been any evidence presented that a unit that consists of models other than foot troops is an infantry unit.

nosferatu1001
19-11-2009, 13:35
No, nothing has been presented that states a unit of infantry joined by a mounted character stops being an Infantry unit.

It may be both an Infantry unit and a Cavalry unit, however there is nothing in teh rulebook that defines an infantry unit as one containing nothing but infantry.

Atrahasis
19-11-2009, 14:05
That depends on how you read the definition - is a unit that contains a cavalry model a unit of foot troops?

It might be a unit containing foot troops, but is it a unit of foot troops?

If I have a bowl with only bananas in it, it's a bowl of bananas. If I put an apple in it, is it still right to describe it as a bowl of bananas? How about 2 apples? How about if the apples outnumber the bananas?

nosferatu1001
19-11-2009, 15:36
I see it as something defined at creation - your unit is Infantry and joined by a mounted character. There is nothing at that point that says the unit is then no longer infantry.

Yes it is illdefined, so you go by the unit starts as infantry until you find something that means they are no longer infantry...its the simplest way of working it

Atrahasis
19-11-2009, 15:45
It doesn't sound very simple to me - I'd much rather work out what type a unit is by looking at it than by having to remember all the stages it has passed through during the game.

An infantry unit is a unit of foot troops; it isn't a unit that used to be a unit of foot troops until someone else joined it.

sulla
19-11-2009, 16:37
Page 6 says:
Units have different capabilities and are divided into several types. For example, when the rules refer to cavalry units, all troops that fall in the category of cavalry must follow those rules.

A character that joins a unit is a part of that unit.
A mounted character is a cavalry model.
If you target the unit he has joined, the character is a part of your target.
He is not infantry.
Therefore the character is an illegal target.
Therefore you cannot target the unit he's with.
GW disagrees with you in at least one FAQ. ;)

Gaargod
20-11-2009, 16:39
Logically speaking, its probably easiest to go the view of IoN here, treating he character as an extension of the unit. That may be badly phrased, but:

The character is clearly not infantry.
The unit is infantry.

At deployment (or whenever), the (cavalry) character joins the unit of infantry. This is now, technically, a mixed unit (taking that term from the lizardmen book, which looks a little bit at mixed units). Therefore it is no longer a target for the spell, as it is a mixed unit.

However!

This is completely illogical and unfortunately relies on taking stuff from other books. I'd say go with target the unit the characer is joined to, not the character itself in this case - meaning that a) the spell can be cast and models removed and b) the unit can be wiped out. This does of course then raise the next problem - will the character instantly be in combat with the rats? Especially if we're assuming the Slann isn't a valid target, how on earth is froggy gonna get out of that box?

Note, i'm not really basing this off rules, more RaI. RaW would say the unit is now mixed, therefore is not a target for the spell.

Incidentally the beast cowers example works because its cast directly onto the character itself - the infantry around him could potentially drop him and move on, whilst he sits there shouting and bashing his horse :D

RMHaggis
21-11-2009, 16:29
ok little off track mabye im just being blind but how do you access the spell in the first place?

Mortogul
21-11-2009, 16:39
Haven't read the skaven book but I take it then this spell will also work against things like bat swarms and fell bats, which are specifically listed as being infantry in the VC book (as far as i know the only book to do this) :confused:

They are a flying Unit not Infantry see the Army Book Entry.

nosferatu1001
21-11-2009, 18:07
ok little off track mabye im just being blind but how do you access the spell in the first place?

Grey Seers and Verminlords can choose to substitute any spell for it.

dopacelat
23-11-2009, 07:36
An infantry unit is a unit of foot troops; it isn't a unit that used to be a unit of foot troops until someone else joined it.

BRB Page 7:
"Infantry includes all units of foot troops, be they Goblins, Men, Ogres, Trolls or any other of the myriad Warhammer races fighting on foot."

An infantry unit INCLUDES units of foot troops.
This means that the term infantry encompasses all foot troops, but is not necessarily limited to just foot troops.

BRB Page 72:
"During the course of a battle, a character is allowed to join a friendly unit of troops - infantry, cavalry, unit of chariots or a war machine's crew, but never a monster, single chariot, unit of flyers or another character! In this case, he becomes part of that unit until he decides to leave it."

I cannot find a ruling that classifies the unit as a 'mixed unit'.
Therefore, the unit type should remain the same, as the terminology for 'Infantry' does not forbid mounted characters from falling under its definition should they join an infantry unit.

WLBjork
24-11-2009, 07:31
They are a flying Unit not Infantry see the Army Book Entry.

BRB page 7 tells you what types of unit there are. Units are Infantry, Cavalry, War Machines, Chariots, Characters or Monsters. Note that Flying Unit is not in there.

VC Bat Swarms and Fell Bats are Infantry Units with the ability to fly (also, see the summary in the back of the VC army book).


edit: dopacelot, looks like you misread Atrahasis's post, he says the same as you ;)

dopacelat
24-11-2009, 11:46
edit: dopacelot, looks like you misread Atrahasis's post, he says the same as you ;)
Yes, I was agreeing with him.

Although I thought I quoted Gaargod too... I had intended to quote Atrahasis then Gaargod and THEN put in the RAW reasoning.

mattieice
24-11-2009, 18:35
I'm in the 'all or nothing' camp for this situation. If the unit can be targeted by the spell, meaning if you agree that a mounted character in a unit of infantry is still a valid target, then there would be no special treatment for the mounted character once you roll the dice. I think the issue is whether it's a 'mixed unit' or not. It would be a pretty ridiculous loophole to prevent the spell from working simply because you have a mounted hero in a unit of infantry. It's also worth mentioning that the spell says 4d6 of the models in the unit; it makes no mention of wounds or creatures with multiple wounds or unit strength.

Xynok
26-11-2009, 22:20
If you REALLY want to go into this so much, affect the unit, not the character, put them into CC. I think being able to nuke a whole unit including a x point character and then replace them with troops is a bit.... cheesey

decker_cky
26-11-2009, 22:37
You mean like a 25+ spell deserves for its power?

09Project
26-11-2009, 22:45
If you REALLY want to go into this so much, affect the unit, not the character, put them into CC. I think being able to nuke a whole unit including a x point character and then replace them with troops is a bit.... cheesey

Yeah but if x point character is on foot, he disappears in to a clanrat if say, there is a unit of 12 and a character, the skaven player rolls 16 so gets 13 clanrats and that x point character, is one of them.

The key is if x point character brought along a nice cheap horse, he now gains immunity, but does the unit?

I dunno, using the previous unit as an example, skaven player rolls 16, the target contains 12infantry models and 1 mounted char, the infantry models are wiped out but as the unit isn't due to the char no clanrats turn up, the character is merely left without a unit. That is how I read it anyway.

Whether that is or is not the intended way to play it should GW rules people look at it I don't know.

nosferatu1001
27-11-2009, 00:50
09Project - once you have targetted the unit the spell removes models - so if you accept that it is an infantry unit then the character, on foot or not, is removed as it is a model in the unit.

The key is the definition of the unit - and the BRB gives a very loose definition of "Infantry" units which seems to include an infantry unit joined by any character, mounted or not.

09Project
27-11-2009, 02:28
09Project - once you have targetted the unit the spell removes models - so if you accept that it is an infantry unit then the character, on foot or not, is removed as it is a model in the unit.

The key is the definition of the unit - and the BRB gives a very loose definition of "Infantry" units which seems to include an infantry unit joined by any character, mounted or not.

hhmm I guess. Must admit, I have never seen a mounted character in an infantry unit in my life so far so don't have much to relate it to. But then, I guess in a skaven vs skaven game, the screaming bell would be fair target for this spell so, why not a guy on a horse etc.

I currently feel this is something I will never come up against, though, interested in the application of rules here. I just feel (though quite probably wrongly) that if you targetting an infantry unit, you must remove infantry models (even if it does just say models and thus Nost your reasoning is quite correct), these cavalry/infantry units feel like a strange thing that causes an issue.

I only play friendly games and until an FAQ I would quite happily play either way, the only way I don't like is that a unit somehow gains a full immunity just cos of a guy on a horse.

wolf40k
27-11-2009, 04:48
I used to put my wizards on barded war horses just for the armor save no mater what unit they were in.

Atrahasis
27-11-2009, 08:09
The key is the definition of the unit - and the BRB gives a very loose definition of "Infantry" units which seems to include an infantry unit joined by any character, mounted or not.

So, is a unit of cavalry joined by an infantry character an infantry unit?

nosferatu1001
27-11-2009, 08:16
Nope, as the character doesnt change the category of the unit - from the description of the unit types anyway.

The definition of an Infantry unit does not state it must be entirely composed of infantry troops, or loses the status of being an "infantry unit" when joined by a mounted character - and therefore as it does not say otherwise a mounted character joining an infantry unit does not alter the unit classification.

In fact if you take "he becomes part of the unit" strictly then he gains the classification of the unit when joining, which makes sense - he cannot move faster than the unit while joined to it, for example.

Atrahasis
27-11-2009, 08:27
Becoming part of the unit doesn't change your "type". That's absurd.

dopacelat
27-11-2009, 09:57
The character 'type' that joins the unit wouldn't change, e.g. a cavalry-based character in a block of US1 infantry would still count as US2, still get cavalry bonus to armour save and etc.
'He becomes part of the unit' would refer only to his presence and participation in that unit; restricted by it's movement, LOS etc.

The primary concern is that the infantry block classification wouldn't change - which it wouldn't given the wording of the BRB.

Atrahasis
27-11-2009, 10:08
So an infantry unit joined by a cavalry character cannot be affected by spells that affect cavalry?

Memnos
27-11-2009, 10:23
Has anybody ever actually cast that spell?

Considering that only a Great Horned One cast it and he doesn't have warpstone, so has to roll a 25+ on 5 dice(Which means he has to roll an average of 5 on all dice), I can't imagine this being a problem. Like... Ever.

If it ever came up in this particular situation, I'd just let it slide.

Atrahasis
27-11-2009, 10:30
Grey Seers can also cast it, and it can be cast on 2 dice. I'm sure someone, somewhere, has cast it at least once.

Adran
27-11-2009, 10:35
Slightly off topic, but I actually saw the spell sucessfully dispelled with dice yesterday. Probably the rarest thing in the warhamnmer world.


Back on topic
The FAQ does say that beast cowers would work on a charcter on a mount in a unit of foot troops.

The best guess I can come up with is that the unit is effected by spells that affect Infantry and by spells that effect cavalry. Unfortuantly following that would mean if you put a character on foot in a unit of cavalry it would be effected by the dreaded 13th spell.
But there are no clear rules on what the exact terms refer to.

dopacelat
27-11-2009, 10:56
So an infantry unit joined by a cavalry character cannot be affected by spells that affect cavalry?

That would depend entirely of the wording of the spell and amendments in FAQs and errata.

E.g. given the reasoning from the BRB used throughout this thread, a spell such as 'The Beast Cowers' as written in the BRB couldn't be cast on infantry units with a mounted character because it would still remain classified as an infantry unit. This was amended in a FAQ to allow for a reasonable exemption.

Dr.Mercury
27-11-2009, 13:09
I think the simplest way to resolve this, is to simply state that a unit's type, is it's type, regardless of who joins it.
If a cavalry unit is joined by a character on foot, they are still cavalry, and all models in the unit can be affected by all game effects that affect cavalry.
If a unit it infantry, and they are joined by a character on a mount, they remain infantry, and all models in the unite can be affected by all game effects that affect infantry.

You just gotta be careful about who joins who if you are playing skaven.

Nurgling Chieftain
27-11-2009, 20:12
E.g. given the reasoning from the BRB used throughout this thread, a spell such as 'The Beast Cowers' as written in the BRB couldn't be cast on infantry units with a mounted character because it would still remain classified as an infantry unit. This was amended in a FAQ to allow for a reasonable exemption.I don't have a problem using that as a precedent for the 13th spell, but remember its caveat: the models that aren't valid targets aren't affected.

What I have a problem with is people targeting a mixed unit because it contains infantry and then having the spell kill non-infantry models because they're models in the target unit.

Queekvondrak
27-11-2009, 21:07
Yeah but if x point character is on foot, he disappears in to a clanrat if say, there is a unit of 12 and a character, the skaven player rolls 16 so gets 13 clanrats and that x point character, is one of them.

The key is if x point character brought along a nice cheap horse, he now gains immunity, but does the unit?

I dunno, using the previous unit as an example, skaven player rolls 16, the target contains 12infantry models and 1 mounted char, the infantry models are wiped out but as the unit isn't due to the char no clanrats turn up, the character is merely left without a unit. That is how I read it anyway.

Whether that is or is not the intended way to play it should GW rules people look at it I don't know.

i agree with what hes saying this is how i interpreted the rule as for the ealier mentioned slann before i played a game against one we dclared the slann as a monsterous character and thus declared him un affacted that as just us its kinda a common sense thing really
the only army ive found that this spell is completely useless agianst is brettonians

gerrymander61
27-11-2009, 22:35
This.... is clear as crystal. The character is a part of that unit, BRB p72.
Character is part of that unit
Character is part of that (unit of infantry)
Character is part of that unit of infantry
Unit of Infantry


If you REALLY want to go into this so much, affect the unit, not the character, put them into CC. I think being able to nuke a whole unit including a x point character and then replace them with troops is a bit.... cheesey

Yeah... it's cast on a 25+. I'm pretty sure it's legit.

Nurgling Chieftain
28-11-2009, 02:22
gerrymander61, your argument is equivalent to arguing that a model on a horse magically loses the horse upon joining a unit of infantry.

gerrymander61
28-11-2009, 07:05
gerrymander61, your argument is equivalent to arguing that a model on a horse magically loses the horse upon joining a unit of infantry.

The mounted character joins a unit of infantry and becomes a part of that unit of infantry. He is a part of a unit of infantry. It's grammar, common sense, and rules too! The holy trinity of I'm right and you're wrong.

Queekvondrak
28-11-2009, 11:27
As for the unit str of the character honestly i see where gerry is coming from. It would be like the unit can only move as fast as its slowest member. Said hero on a horse can only move as fast its slowest member. Its not a great example but the best way I can try to justify it in my mind set.


The holy trinity of I'm right and you're wrong.

On a side note I very well may have to sig this.

gwrulz
30-11-2009, 16:45
I say the mounted charactor is replaced with a mounted clan rat :)

Just kidding!

Nurgling Chieftain
30-11-2009, 18:15
The mounted character joins a unit of infantry and becomes a part of that unit of infantry.Making him infantry. So, his horse disappears. That's your argument?

gerrymander61
30-11-2009, 19:37
Making him infantry. So, his horse disappears. That's your argument?

Nope. He is not infantry. He is however, a part of a unit of infantry. There is a unit of infantry, and although he is mounted, he is still a member of that unit of infantry.

Zoolander
30-11-2009, 19:40
For the effect of this spell, the character is treated as infantry. Grammar and common sense should tell you that the character is a cavalry model in most instances, but with certain spells and effects that affect the whole unit, he is considered part of the unit, just as the rules state. He doesn't suddenly stop becoming part of the unit in other instances, why should he in this case? The psychology rules support this (fear, terror, etc.), movement rules support this, most magic spell rules support this (beast cowers was a good example), why in the world would you suddenly decide he's NOT part of the unit for this one spell? In all other cases, he is part of the unit. Reason stands that he is part of the unit in this case as well. But I suppose this will be item 47 out of 253 on the Skaven FAQ...

Anyway, the opponents to this argument haven't brought up a shred of evidence to back their claims, so until they do...

Nurgling Chieftain
30-11-2009, 20:13
He is not infantry. He is however, a part of a unit of infantry.These are contradictory statements. If he is part of it, and not infantry, it is no longer a unit of infantry.

shartmatau
30-11-2009, 21:07
I dont really care about this debate but I will put in my two cents on that last statement chieftain.

an Infantry unit is not the same thing as a unit of infantry. As odd as it sounds, just because a unit does not consist entirely of infantry does not stop the fact that the original unit was classified as an Infantry unit.

Or to put in the simplest of terms. A character joins the unit, the unit does not join the character. The unit remains infantry.

I'm not sure the wording of this spell but if the restriction is that can only target an infantry unit, then it may target one with a joined character. If the wording says it may only damage infantry models then the character has nothing to worry about although his unit may die around him.

Atrahasis
01-12-2009, 07:38
an Infantry unit is not the same thing as a unit of infantry.

"Infantry unit" is defined as a "unit of foot troops".

Once again, if a unit has cavalry in it, is it still a unit of foot troops?

If I have a bowl with 10 bananas in it and one apple, is it a bowl of bananas? How abaout 5 bananas and 5 apples? 9 apples and 1 banana? 1 apple and 1 banana?

Valaraukar
01-12-2009, 14:00
Yet another slightly different stance:

I very much play by common sense and intent rather than what seems to me at least ridiculous situations that arise from 'RAW' which as shown by god knows how many threads on here is not in any way well written enough to support only one interpretation even by 'RAWists'.

The spell states it can only target infantry units so I would have no problem with someone targetting a unit of infantry which had been joined by a mounted character.

The character if on their own or in a cavalry unit however could not be targetted so it stands to reason to me that the 'intent' is that such models cannot be affected by such a spell and so I would not remove the character regardless of the roll.

I would also humbly suggest that the rules for infernal gateway point to this interpretation as well, although far be it from me to say GW wouldn't contradict themselves. For those who don't know Infernal Gateway specifically states that the removal of the unit includes any chracters who have joined it where this does not.

Now on the more controversial part in my mind, the replacement with clan rats. I would allow the infantry models to be replaced if all but the character were removed as I beleive the rules note that once all the original members of a unit have been removed and only characters remain they no longer count as a unit. For instance if I had a unit with a general and a bsb in and all the troops were to die would the general still benefit from any rules from a magic banner borne by the BSB relating to the BSB and his unit?

Finally as to this debate around mixed units, unit type etc. which as you can see doesn't really figure in my argument let me ask you this. If for some reason you had an infantry character with greatweapon in a cavalry unit would he gain +1 AS for being cavalry but only +1S from his weapon? I rather think not as he does not himself become a cavalry model and likewise a cavalry model does not become infantry when joining an infantry unit and lose his +1 AS. However as you can see above I don't think this should prevent the targetting of the unit by the spell just because the character who has joined it is still a cavalry model as by 'intent' again (apologies RAWists) if the spell worked on those individuals without the character present what about his presence now makes them immune to it's effects or an unviable target for the spell?

nosferatu1001
01-12-2009, 14:21
You remain a member of the unit until the end of the phase - if you kill all a unit (not ItP) due to shooting leaving just a character then the character must take a panic test.

The spell also removes models therefore the only discussion is whether you can target the unit or not.

Valaraukar
01-12-2009, 14:41
No, in your opinion the only matter for discussion is whether you can target the unit or not. I beg to differ based on what I would see as common sense, as others obviously do to and as was forced to be rolled for at a tournament I would suggest it is not an uncommon perspective. I am merely stating my train of thought on the matter and how I would play it if it were up to me.

I don't have the rulebook with me as I am at work and if you say you are certain you remain a member of the unit until the end of the phase then I will take you at your word. I am merely saying that I would allow my opponent to replace the troops with clanrats if we had agreed upon my interpretation that the character should not be removed as I beleive that is fair as I also beleive it to be fair and in the interests of 'the most important rule' to allow such a unit to be targeted.

I am guessing you prefer set in stone and as you see it RAW and correct interpretations of the rules and beleive it or not so would I. However given the well known ambiguity of the rules GW releases for the sake of my sanity and a fun gaming experience I prefer to use common sense as I see it. You are quite welcome to disagree and if I were playing you I would suggest we roll for it, but to state as fact something which has so divided opinion is very close minded and I don't agree that the writing of the rules is clear enough to make such a determination. This is shown by the number of seemingly contradictory interpretations GW itself manages to come out with in FAQs etc.

Zoolander
01-12-2009, 15:11
"Infantry unit" is defined as a "unit of foot troops".

Once again, if a unit has cavalry in it, is it still a unit of foot troops?

If I have a bowl with 10 bananas in it and one apple, is it a bowl of bananas? How abaout 5 bananas and 5 apples? 9 apples and 1 banana? 1 apple and 1 banana?

Vampire bats are infantry. How are they a "unit of foot troops"?

And your example with the fruit has no barring on a game, as we're not talking about classfications of objects in real life, but units in a set of game rules. Big difference.

I like your interpretation of the rules Valaraukar, but a character that joins a unit is part of that unit regardless of what happens. So if the unit is removed via spell or other method, the character will be removed also. I believe Nosferatu has it right in this case. The only real question remains where you can target the unit at all. I say yes, as adding a character does not change the unit into non-infantry anymore than adding a character on foot makes a unit of cavalry into non-cavalry. Other spells such as Beast Cowers are clear on this, and I imagine this spell will follow suite.

gerrymander61
01-12-2009, 15:15
No, in your opinion the only matter for discussion is whether you can target the unit or not. I beg to differ based on what I would see as common sense, as others obviously do to and as was forced to be rolled for at a tournament I would suggest it is not an uncommon perspective. I am merely stating my train of thought on the matter and how I would play it if it were up to me.

I don't have the rulebook with me as I am at work and if you say you are certain you remain a member of the unit until the end of the phase then I will take you at your word. I am merely saying that I would allow my opponent to replace the troops with clanrats if we had agreed upon my interpretation that the character should not be removed as I beleive that is fair as I also beleive it to be fair and in the interests of 'the most important rule' to allow such a unit to be targeted.

I am guessing you prefer set in stone and as you see it RAW and correct interpretations of the rules and beleive it or not so would I. However given the well known ambiguity of the rules GW releases for the sake of my sanity and a fun gaming experience I prefer to use common sense as I see it. You are quite welcome to disagree and if I were playing you I would suggest we roll for it, but to state as fact something which has so divided opinion is very close minded and I don't agree that the writing of the rules is clear enough to make such a determination. This is shown by the number of seemingly contradictory interpretations GW itself manages to come out with in FAQs etc.

You're free to believe that when GW says "remove X models from that unit" they really mean "remove X models from that unit UNTIL YOU HIT A CHARACTER MY FRIEND BECAUSE CHARACTERS ARE NOT MODELS." Likewise, you're also free to believe that we never landed on the moon, that the World Trade Center wasn't attacked by terrorists, and that Elvis is still alive.

Also, you believe it to be "fair?" Excuse me? Do you work for GW? It's a 25+ spell for Christ's sake. The only way in which it could be OP would be if it summoned pornstars to come cheer me on and a swarm of bees to come attack you.

Cambion Daystar
01-12-2009, 15:31
Vampire bats are infantry. How are they a "unit of foot troops"?
Because the rules say so! How they are modelled doesn't matter.



And your example with the fruit has no barring on a game,

Yes it does.



as we're not talking about classfications of objects in real life, but units in a set of game rules. Big difference.

That only shows you fail to grasp the concept of an analogy

nosferatu1001
01-12-2009, 15:40
No, in your opinion the only matter for discussion is whether you can target the unit or not. I beg to differ based on what I would see as common sense, as others obviously do to and as was forced to be rolled for at a tournament I would suggest it is not an uncommon perspective. I am merely stating my train of thought on the matter and how I would play it if it were up to me.

Except the rules in the BRB state you are a member of the unit in all respects, and so as the spell specifically removes models the only "unclear" element is whether you can target the unit in the first place.

Unless you wish to argue characters are not models, or is that "common sense" for you?

Whether it was rolled for or not at a tournament is fairly irrelevant, as quite frankly I have seen some appalling rules decisions that directly contradict what is written in a book, so I am not at all surprised that some people get confused byt he word "model" and think it means other than it does.

You target a unit of infantry, and then remove 4D6 models. That is all there is to the spell - so the only item that is unclear is whether the unit can be targetted at all.

Zoolander
01-12-2009, 15:47
Because the rules say so! How they are modelled doesn't matter.


Yes it does.


That only shows you fail to grasp the concept of an analogy

Cambion, less insults and more constructiveness in your posts would be appreciated.

You miss the point I was making with the bats. He was claiming that a character on a horse could not be infantry because infantry are described as a "unit of foot troops". Well, bats are infantry and clearly not a "unit of foot troops", so that means that the description "unit of foot troops" could be applied to other units as well, could it not?


Yes it does.

Really? Please explain. Three word sentences say nothing and don't further the discussion or change views.

I grasp the concept of analogy just fine. I'm just curious how you plan on using that analogy in a game. Warhammer Fantasy doesn't make sense. It's not realistic or logical in any way. GW can declare that when a mounted hero joins a unit, they all move at his speed. They can declare anything they like. Therefore, trying to use a real world example of fruit to make a point is rather daft. I'll refer back to the bats.

Cambion Daystar
01-12-2009, 15:58
Cambion, less insults and more constructiveness in your posts would be appreciated.

Where did i insult you?



You miss the point I was making with the bats. He was claiming that a character on a horse could not be infantry because infantry are described as a "unit of foot troops". Well, bats are infantry and clearly not a "unit of foot troops", so that means that the description "unit of foot troops" could be applied to other units as well, could it not?

Unit of foot troops = unit of (infantry models). Not a unit of (infantry models + cavalry models).




Really? Please explain. Three word sentences say nothing and don't further the discussion or change views.

I grasp the concept of analogy just fine. I'm just curious how you plan on using that analogy in a game. Warhammer Fantasy doesn't make sense. It's not realistic or logical in any way. GW can declare that when a mounted hero joins a unit, they all move at his speed. They can declare anything they like. Therefore, trying to use a real world example of fruit to make a point is rather daft. I'll refer back to the bats.

Bowl of 10 bananas = unit of (10 infantry)
Bowl of 9 bananas + 1 apple = unit of (9 infantry + 1 cavalry)
Bowl of 9 bananas +1 apple != unit of (10 infantry)
Please explain where exactly this analogy is wrong.

Thanatos_elNyx
01-12-2009, 16:08
I really don't know which way to go on this discussion.
IMO A unit of Infantry with a Mounted Character is still a unit of Infantry but I would totally understand if an opponent thought otherwise.


Unit of foot troops = unit of (US1 infantry models).
You don't have to be US1 to be Infantry.
This spell stills works on units of Ogres, etc.

Atrahasis
01-12-2009, 16:12
[COLOR="Yellow"]Vampire bats are infantry. How are they a "unit of foot troops"?Because they fight on foot...

That, and the VC book classifies them as infantry. An unusual unit being infantry does not change the definition of infantry in the rulebook.


And your example with the fruit has no barring on a game, as we're not talking about classfications of objects in real life, but units in a set of game rules. Big difference.And the "set of game rules" defines units of infantry as "units of foot troops". We still have to use English and real life to work out what a "unit of foot troops" is, hence the analogy.

Zoolander
01-12-2009, 16:35
Where did i insult you?

Your general attitude. Your last statement. Claiming I don't understand analogies is a bold statement considering you don't know me.


Unit of foot troops = unit of (US1 infantry models). Not a unit of (US1 infantry models + US2 cavalry models).

As was already pointed out by others, infantry includes units such as ogres, which are not US1.

Other than conjecture, you have failed to show any rules where a mounted character within a unit is not considered infantry (for spells and other effects). On the other hand, myself and others have shown that a character in a unit is considered part of that unit in all respects.


Bowl of 10 bananas = unit of (10 infantry)
Bowl of 9 bananas + 1 apple = unit of (9 infantry + 1 cavalry)
Bowl of 9 bananas +1 apple != unit of (10 infantry)
Please explain where exactly this analogy is wrong.

The analogy is not wrong at all. It simply cannot be applied to Warhammer Fantasy Battles because as I pointed out, GW can state anything they want in their rules whether it makes sense or not. You are using common sense to solve this problem, and I congratulate you, but this game doesn't make sense in any way, so while it may seem that you've solved the problem, you haven't. The BRB clearly states that a character that joins a unit is considered part of that unit in all respects. So in your example, that apple just became a banana in all respects (or maybe they're all just considered fruit!).

shartmatau
01-12-2009, 16:41
Unit of foot troops = unit of (infantry models).

I'll start with your first statement. That is correct, a unit of foot troops is an Infantry unit as per the rules.





Not a unit of (infantry models + cavalry models).


This is incorrect. No where in the rules does a unit Type change with the addition of a character.

I earlier said, an Infantry unit is not the same as a unit of infantry.
You have failed to grasp this statement so I'll try to explain my meaning.

In these games there is a large distinction between a unit Type and the members of a unit. Unit Types are broad categories that encompass many units giving them all similar characteristics so that the rules may be applied to them all in the same manner.

The actual models within the unit do not matter at all as long as the unit itself has a unit Type. For example a unit of Ogres is treated the same as a unit of Elf Spearmen even though they are clearly different units, both are Infantry units; that is their unit Type.

A unit of Empire Knights and a unit of Warhounds are very different in many respects but both are cavalry units; that is their unit Type.


I fully understand that a Mounted Character (being Cavalry Type) can join a unit of Spearmen (Infantry Type) and that this brings certain advantages and disadvantages to both character and unit. What it does not do is change any of their unit Types. A unit if fully able to be multiple Types, consisting of different models. Said unit could be targeted by any spells or abilities that affect Infantry or Cavalry because it contains both.

The Type of a unit does not change with the addition of anything to the unit. Infantry remain Infantry.

As was said, that same unit could be targetted by the Beast Cowers spell and be forced to sit still because it contains a horse. Nothing loses its unit Type and their is no Type called 'mixed'. It is possible to follow two sets of rules (those applying to both Infantry and Cavalry) and end up at a conclusion. You may not like the conclusion but its there despite that.

I hope this makes sense. Cheers. If you want to check for yourself the relevant rules are on pages 6,7 and under the various unit Type description later in the book.

GutterRunner
01-12-2009, 16:56
Ok, so my 2 cents on this. So a mounted Empire Captain joins a unit of spearmen. They are fighting skaven. Over 4 rounds they weaken, outnumber and defeat said skaven in a round of combat. Now the Captain is wearing the helm of the rat slayer to instill fear in the skaven (I dont have my empire book atm, but I am going with the assumption it does not make the whole unit scary, just him, if it does make the whole unit scary, too bad, my example, item doesnt matter just the effect). Now he causes fear, unit outnumbers and they won. Do the Skaven auto-flee. No, unless there is only 1 left anyways. If 10 are left, then the captain does not outnumber, thus standard check.

There are many examples of characters joining a unit and not affecting their rules, even if his are different. So why would a guy on a horse make them non infantry? But at the same time why would he be affected? Until an FAQ comes out my opponents, unless they can solve this for me without arguing it simple makes no sense (and remember, since when did a GW book have to make sense?) I will first go with he is also eligible, same as a character in a fleeing unit can't decide to leave it, why does he get to decide to not die.

Or they may instead, if it happens he is the last left, move the character 1" away from the unit, any facing, but only to the front of the unit, as this is the facing he was on, and if he "rides" to the back, then I should get to make attacks against him, so for simplicity sake, put him 1 inch in front of where he was, a simple move forward. If he is inneligeble to die, then he must leave the unit, as characters can not join or be part of enemy units unless they have specific rules for it.

Now to hide behind an umbrella to avoid the rotten tomatoes....