PDA

View Full Version : Savage Beast of Horros on Characters Riding Monsters



SiNNiX
03-09-2010, 05:24
Augment spells affect both the character and the monster being ridden, correct? So Savage Beast of Horros would affect both the Character and the ridden Monster, granting both +3 S and +3 A?

This is probably pretty obvious but I haven't run across this yet and I want to be sure when I do (as it will be me doing the casting).

Yrrdead
03-09-2010, 06:53
I would say no. I'm sure that we will get someone in here right quick to disagree but that's my take on it.

The spell is very specific about affecting characters. The section about Monster mounts (pg 105-106) doesn't give us a whole lot of guidance. Though taken as a whole it is rather particular in differentiating between the two (mount and character) unlike a "normal" cavalry mount.

Whilst Wyssan's Wildform is an augment that affects a target unit (of which the rider and the monster are two models in said unit) , Savage Beast is quite different.

I think we have had this discussion before. Let me do some search-fu and see if I can find the old thread.


Edit - Other Thread (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269479&highlight=Savage+Beast)

Mid'ean
03-09-2010, 11:13
I would say no too. The spell is pretty specific on can be cast on any "character". Said monster is not a character.

theunwantedbeing
03-09-2010, 13:03
No, stop looking for rules loopholes you can abuse.

dude.sweet101@yahoo.co.uk
03-09-2010, 13:10
It would however work on a character that had been turned into a monster.
4d6 + 3 attacks anyone? With hatred 'cause your still a beastman shaman?
Oh dear........

Mid'ean
04-09-2010, 04:52
And it you wanted to take it another step further into the realm of insanity throw in red fury/inf hatred on top of that. 7-27 re-rollable attacks at S10, and then one more attack for every unsaved wound you cause.......:skull:

SiNNiX
04-09-2010, 05:44
No, stop looking for rules loopholes you can abuse.

......no u

Casshole
05-09-2010, 13:56
RAW the monster absolutely gets the bonus, as it says right in the spell that the model gets the bonus and that the monster is included in said model. Until a faq comes out proving otherwise this is the way the rules would indicate it is played.

Mid'ean
05-09-2010, 17:56
Seems you must be having trouble understanding the very first sentance for the spell. "The savage beast of horros is an augment spell with a range of 12", and is cast on a friendly CHARACTER, which can be the wizard himself." You seem to be caught up on the next sentance stating that the model, which the previous sentance has already said is a character gains said bonuses. Even the very next sentance goes ahead and states again you can target all friendly CHARACTERS....I don't see how you can state that the monster, who is in no way, shape, or form..a character, gets the bonus too.

SiNNiX
06-09-2010, 00:08
Seems you must be having trouble understanding the very first sentance for the spell. "The savage beast of horros is an augment spell with a range of 12", and is cast on a friendly CHARACTER, which can be the wizard himself." You seem to be caught up on the next sentance stating that the model, which the previous sentance has already said is a character gains said bonuses. Even the very next sentance goes ahead and states again you can target all friendly CHARACTERS....I don't see how you can state that the monster, who is in no way, shape, or form..a character, gets the bonus too.

Fair enough, but have we also established that augment spells affect both the riders and their mounts, monstrous or not?

Yrrdead
06-09-2010, 06:34
Fair enough, but have we also established that augment spells affect both the riders and their mounts, monstrous or not?

Depends on the spell description. Augments/Hexes that effect units will most certainly affect all portions of said unit.

I think at the point where we are (Post FAQ 1.0) most of the spells seem pretty clear cut. (BRB Lores)

Though the elephant in the room regarding spells is still all the Army Book specific lores.

How much time would it take GW to look through all the books and assign spell types to them? I'm pretty sure that any of us could knock it out in about an 1 hr. That includes the time it would take to export it into a PDF and upload it the site.

TheTrueSloth
06-09-2010, 08:50
Even the very next sentance goes ahead and states again you can target all friendly CHARACTERS....I don't see how you can state that the monster, who is in no way, shape, or form..a character, gets the bonus too.

Yes, it does.

Page 104, right column, first sentence, under Character Mounts:


A character and his mount are treated as a single character model for all rules purposes...

Page 105, Monstrous Cavalry Mount:


Very rarely, a character will have the option to ride a monstrous beast. In this case, the whole model is treated as having the troop type 'monstrous cavalry' and follows all the rules for both characters and monstrous cavalry models.

Ridden Monsters, page 105:


If the character has a ridden monster, the whole model is treated as having the troop type monster and thus follows all the rules for both characters and monster models.

Ergo, you cast Savage Beast of Horros on a character riding a dragon, then the whole model benefits. Same as if he's riding a Juggernaut, chariot or warhorse.

Think of it this way, you cast steed of shadows on a mounted character, who moves?

I like that passage, it allows Wood Elf Unicorns to transfer their magic resistance to a unit they join :)

Toodles

Mid'ean
06-09-2010, 12:34
Yes, it does.

Page 104, right column, first sentence, under Character Mounts:

Sorry all it says there is the characters mounts can ranges from all kinds of things. And that there are many models available.





Page 105, Monstrous Cavalry Mount:

Again, all its saying is that model has a different troop type. Not that the monster is now a character.


Ridden Monsters, page 105:

Again, all its saying is that model has a different troop type. Not that the monster is now a character.


Ergo, you cast Savage Beast of Horros on a character riding a dragon, then the whole model benefits. Same as if he's riding a Juggernaut, chariot or warhorse.

Think of it this way, you cast steed of shadows on a mounted character, who moves?

I like that passage, it allows Wood Elf Unicorns to transfer their magic resistance to a unit they join :)

Toodles

You can look in the back of ANY army book and you'll see the reference section listing characters...and mounts. Notice how they are 2 different sections. Just giving a monstrous mount to a character does not make the monster a character. Sorry, just not happening. If that's the way you play it, knock yourself out. Just don't expect many players to play you again. I know I wouldn't.

TheTrueSloth
06-09-2010, 13:27
Again, all its saying is that model has a different troop type. Not that the monster is now a character.

Really?


A character and his mount are treated as a single character model for all rules purposes

And


If the character has a ridden monster, the whole model is treated as having the troop type monster and thus follows all the rules for both characters and monster models.

Don't mean the model will be treated as both a character and a monster?

...

*rubs eyes and reads again*

...

Look again. It's not just say the character is "now a monster troop type", it's also saying "the character model now follows both the character and monster special rules". I really don't see what's ambiguous about:

"the whole model is treated...and thus follows all the rules for both characters and monster models".

Savage beast of Horros targets a character in range of the Wizard. Therefore, a character on a mount - as a single model that follows both the monster and character special rules, would benefit from the Savage Beast of Horros.

Do you really want to argue that a character model riding a mounstrous mount/mount/monster/chariot stops being a character model because of it? :eek:

Again, I have to ask as a demonstrative point: If you cast "Steed of Shadows" on a character, who moves? By the logic you're using, only the character would "fly off the mount", leaving the mount behind. It doesn't work.

Toodles

Mid'ean
06-09-2010, 15:29
Well then we're gonna have to agree that we disagree completely. We're both reading the same sentences and coming to totally different conclusions....:D

TheTrueSloth
06-09-2010, 15:50
Well then we're gonna have to agree that we disagree completely. We're both reading the same sentences and coming to totally different conclusions....:D

Agreed ;)

But I have to ask:

1) how do you interpret Steed of Shadows working on a mounted model?
2) What do you interpret "A character and his mount are treated as a single character model for all rules purposes" to mean? Is it as "A character, but not his mount, is treated as a single character model for all rules purposes"?

Toodles

Mid'ean
06-09-2010, 17:37
Agreed ;)

But I have to ask:

1) how do you interpret Steed of Shadows working on a mounted model?
2) What do you interpret "A character and his mount are treated as a single character model for all rules purposes" to mean? Is it as "A character, but not his mount, is treated as a single character model for all rules purposes"?

Toodles

1) the same way they explained flying horror (VC) and be mounted and able to fly, with your mount.
2) That it is a model that is a character, who is mounted on a monster for all rules purposes.

And according to the spell in question. It says only characters gain the benefit. But if you go by your way of thinking. Would a HE character, who takes a chariot as his mount. I'm assuming they can do this, don't have their book.....The crew, including the white lions, get the bonus too? 10 S8 attacks from the lions??? Sign me up for that one baby!!

TheTrueSloth
06-09-2010, 23:33
1) the same way they explained flying horror (VC) and be mounted and able to fly, with your mount.

Which I'd agree with you for sake of the game, but then we're applying what we *think* should happen to rules that, rather unfortunately clearly, tell us what *will* happen.


2) That it is a model that is a character, who is mounted on a monster for all rules purposes.

That's not a bad way of looking at it actually. The model is still considered a monster as well for all rules purposes.

If we were being really fussy though we could push that the "character" rule would allow the entirety of the model to get the bonus, mount and all. The "monster" rule would show us that the character is no longer just a character by equally ambiguous discussion and force Savage Beast of Horros to have no effect what-so-ever (as you're also targeting a monster, which the spell does not allow). Which in a tournament would bring a judge over to slap the person that applies it to the whole model :)


And according to the spell in question. It says only characters gain the benefit.

Very true, but the RAW is strangely clear that the entire model is considered a character as well.


But if you go by your way of thinking. Would a HE character, who takes a chariot as his mount. I'm assuming they can do this, don't have their book.....The crew, including the white lions, get the bonus too? 10 S8 attacks from the lions??? Sign me up for that one baby!!

By technicality of RAW, the buff would work on the entire model.

The best counter-point I can think of is to use the FAQ that details with effects that target models targeting different locations on a model (though that's more about Spirit Leech) and also insisting that the model is both "character" and "X" and that therefore, the character element is the reason the buff is applied and should therefore only be slapped on him, not his "X".

Which is more RAI than RAW, but it seems pretty reasonable to me :)

On the other hand, give a character Hatred and mount him on a Dragon, the whole model (mount and all) get the Hatred bonus too :eek:

Toodles

Mid'ean
06-09-2010, 23:54
Which I'd agree with you for sake of the game, but then we're applying what we *think* should happen to rules that, rather unfortunately clearly, tell us what *will* happen.

Toodles

Actually is was faq'ed that way in the 7th edition vamp faq....

TheTrueSloth
07-09-2010, 00:12
Actually is was faq'ed that way in the 7th edition vamp faq....

Ah good man - did the FAQ entry transfer over?

Additionally, my point really was that Steed of Shadows has the same principles and terminology as Savage Beast - targeting the character. IIRC, I don't think they FAQ'ed the steed, did they?

Toodles

SiNNiX
07-09-2010, 04:18
Guys, guys, guys! Although you two seem to be arguing reasonably and in a mature fashion, just agree to disagree! :) Besides, it's already been confirmed to me by many people (assuming I decide to go by what I hear) that it confers the additional stat bumps to both the character and the mount.

Yrrdead
07-09-2010, 04:50
Well I still have a question for TrueSloth.

Are you granting both the Character and the Mount the augment?

Or are you allowing your opponent to split the +3/+3 amonst the rider and mount?

If it is the former I would venture to disagree but if the latter than I don't really see a problem.

itcamefromthedeep
07-09-2010, 05:30
Yes, it does.

Page 104, right column, first sentence, under Character Mounts:

Page 105, Monstrous Cavalry Mount:

Ridden Monsters, page 105:My God that's a compelling set of references. :eek:


Well I still have a question for TrueSloth.

Are you granting both the Character and the Mount the augment?

Or are you allowing your opponent to split the +3/+3 amonst the rider and mount?

If it is the former I would venture to disagree but if the latter than I don't really see a problem.
That's kinda funny. There's no reason to think that the opposing player would choose how the bonuses would be distributed, though.

Let me crack open my rulebook. One minute...

...

Well, it looks like the rider and monster are indeed one model, such that giving +3 Attacks to the rider and +3 Attacks to the mount would be giving the model +6 Attacks (which is clearly more than the spell allows). Adding Strength intuitively seems a little fuzzier, but could reasonably follow the same principle. One model, one cap.

I still think that the player owning the model should get to decide how the bonus Attacks and Strength are distributed amongst the stat lines of the character model.

Yrrdead
07-09-2010, 05:34
Oh I didn't mean to imply that the opponent gets to choose. The casting player would decide how to split up the boni. Sorry for the confusion.

EDMM
07-09-2010, 06:12
"all rules purposes" is pretty bloody straightforward.

TheTrueSloth
07-09-2010, 09:21
SiNNiX - we've already agreed to disagree, I just wanted to clarify a few points I was confused on, see if I missed anything blatantly obvious and what-not :)


Well I still have a question for TrueSloth.

Are you granting both the Character and the Mount the augment?

Or are you allowing your opponent to split the +3/+3 amonst the rider and mount?

If it is the former I would venture to disagree but if the latter than I don't really see a problem.

Depends on the environment of the game to be honest with you, which is somewhat machiavellian. If its' a friendly game or a tournament game where I want to earn a few more sportsmanship points, I won't argue with whatever my opponent thinks would happen during the game.

If I was playing for stakes in a tournament or if I just didn't like the guy I was playing, however, I would force a roll-off scenario/judges decision (in a tournament) or just continue to point out the statement "for all rules purposes" depending on if I was the one using it or not (for people that I really don't like).


Well, it looks like the rider and monster are indeed one model, such that giving +3 Attacks to the rider and +3 Attacks to the mount would be giving the model +6 Attacks (which is clearly more than the spell allows). Adding Strength intuitively seems a little fuzzier, but could reasonably follow the same principle. One model, one cap.

I might borrow this one too if that's alright with you?

Toodles

SiNNiX
07-09-2010, 19:48
So if a spell is cast on a unit that gives the unit +1 Attack, you have to choose one model to gain the Attack? That would follow the above logic, considering the spell doesn't say that the unit gets +7 Attacks or +5 Attacks or anything like that.

I don't know, nor do I really care anymore. Just figured I'd ask for clarification.

itcamefromthedeep
07-09-2010, 22:40
So if a spell is cast on a unit that gives the unit +1 Attack, you have to choose one model to gain the Attack? That would follow the above logic, considering the spell doesn't say that the unit gets +7 Attacks or +5 Attacks or anything like that.

I don't know, nor do I really care anymore. Just figured I'd ask for clarification.If the spell gives "the unit" +1 Attack, then yes it's rather silly. If it gives "every model in the unit" +1 Attack, then it makes sense. The Enfeebling Foe, for instance reduces the stats of every model in the unit. Most spells are worded this way.

If there were a spell that reduced the Attacks of the unit by 1, then you would total up the attacks and then reduce the net value by 1. I don't know of such a spell, though.

Take the example of the common magic weapon Warrior Bane. A monster or character that suffers unsaved wounds from Warrior Bane loses an Attack for each unsaved wound. This would remove 1 Attack from either the monster or rider, but not both.

Yrrdead
07-09-2010, 23:31
So if a spell is cast on a unit that gives the unit +1 Attack, you have to choose one model to gain the Attack? That would follow the above logic, considering the spell doesn't say that the unit gets +7 Attacks or +5 Attacks or anything like that.

I don't know, nor do I really care anymore. Just figured I'd ask for clarification.

I think you need to go back and carefully read the spells that we are discussing.