PDA

View Full Version : Can a regular Treeman issue challenges?



Haravikk
11-02-2010, 12:11
Title says it all; Treemen aren't defined as monsters in the Wood Elves army book, which is strange in itself, but I'm assuming they play in much the same way (a unit of one). Treemen Ancients however appear to be individual characters as normal.

However, are regular Treemen able to issue challenges? It's not very clear how they are supposed to be played from what I can tell.

I'm asking on behalf of my brother, my Dwarf army doesn't have any problems like this :)

Bloodknight
11-02-2010, 12:19
No. Only the TM Ancient can, because he's a character.

Mezziah
11-02-2010, 12:20
Title says it all; Treemen aren't defined as monsters in the Wood Elves army book, which is strange in itself, but I'm assuming they play in much the same way (a unit of one). Treemen Ancients however appear to be individual characters as normal.

However, are regular Treemen able to issue challenges? It's not very clear how they are supposed to be played from what I can tell.

I'm asking on behalf of my brother, my Dwarf army doesn't have any problems like this :)


Treemen are monsters and can therefore not issue challenges.
A Treeman ancient becomes a Character and can therefore issue challenges.

One question regarding this, which I think I got right;
Doesn't the Character-rule override the monster rule, so that items that only effect monsters don't affect "monster characters"?

I've been in this situation before with a Bloodthirster (which is apparently a monster and a character). I met an opponent (O&G) who used Collar of Zorga on his warboss. After much debate here on warseer people came to the conclusion that the collar didn't effect characters. Or more true, a character IS never a monster, in rule-terms. It just moves and behaves as one.

Bac5665
11-02-2010, 12:27
The FAQ says that characters which are monsters aren't monsters, just characters.

Despite having written the exact opposite in the most recent army book.

It's one of the worse rulings in GW history because 1) it directly contradicts the rules and 2) the only effect it had was to make Bloodthirsters more powerful, because they were so weak before :eyebrows:

Mezziah
11-02-2010, 12:41
The FAQ says that characters which are monsters aren't monsters, just characters.

Despite having written the exact opposite in the most recent army book.

It's one of the worse rulings in GW history because 1) it directly contradicts the rules and 2) the only effect it had was to make Bloodthirsters more powerful, because they were so weak before :eyebrows:

It also makes some other things more powerful, as some named characters who are monsters, and in this case the Treeman ancient.

Bac5665
11-02-2010, 12:51
I meant for Bloodthirsters to be an example of the class. Yes, your right, it makes other units more powerful too. More reason it was a stupid ruling.

Mezziah
11-02-2010, 13:28
I meant for Bloodthirsters to be an example of the class. Yes, your right, it makes other units more powerful too. More reason it was a stupid ruling.

It was.. but some things I think are made quite right now. I mean, why would a 5pt item that controls wild animals and monsters make a Treeman ancient or a Bloodthrister incapable of killing the wearer?

GW could really have thought alot more when designing that item. Only making it workable against ridden monsters or mounts perhaps?

Bac5665
11-02-2010, 13:43
It was.. but some things I think are made quite right now. I mean, why would a 5pt item that controls wild animals and monsters make a Treeman ancient or a Bloodthrister incapable of killing the wearer?

GW could really have thought alot more when designing that item. Only making it workable against ridden monsters or mounts perhaps?

Because that 5 point item is the only way (still) that beasts can have a chance of still playing a game against a 'thirster. Or at least would be if GW weren't tools.

Lord Malorne
11-02-2010, 13:45
No. Only the TM Ancient can, because he's a character.

Correct .

The SkaerKrow
11-02-2010, 13:46
On topic, no, a Treeman cannot issue or accept challenges. A Treeman is a Monster, not a character. A Treeman Ancient is able to issue and accept challenges because he is a specifically a Treeman character.

Haravikk
11-02-2010, 22:44
What qualifies the Treeman as a monster? I mean, it makes sense and that's what I've been going with, but the Wood Elves army book doesn't specify it as such, I thought monstrous creatures were supposed to have that listed as a special rule?

Ultimate Life Form
11-02-2010, 22:48
What qualifies the Treeman as a monster? I mean, it makes sense and that's what I've been going with, but the Wood Elves army book doesn't specify it as such, I thought monstrous creatures were supposed to have that listed as a special rule?

No. GW is completely idiotic regarding this, as they refuse to simply tell us what the units are in the entry. Instead we have to compare them to that stupid list in the BRB to (hopefully) know what it is. The Treeman is a multiwound model on a 50mm base and as such classified as a Monster, but it's not always that clear.

Nurgling Chieftain
11-02-2010, 23:13
GW is completely idiotic regarding this...Not completely idiotic. The 40K guys figured this out years ago. I don't know why their WFB team doesn't do the same thing (or rather, doesn't do it consistently or even frequently).

stripsteak
12-02-2010, 03:02
What qualifies the Treeman as a monster? I mean, it makes sense and that's what I've been going with, but the Wood Elves army book doesn't specify it as such, I thought monstrous creatures were supposed to have that listed as a special rule?

the only thing they are consistent with as a special rule is chariot. most other unit types are never specified.