PDA

View Full Version : Spirit Leeching



CaliforniaGamer
08-09-2010, 01:56
So target adds D6+ "respective unmodified leadership" vs. the caster.

Monsters and handlers:
Hellcannon has LD 4, Spirit Leech ignores armor saves. LD9 of CDwarfs cant be used.

Seems like an effective way to deal with Hellcannons, correct? Should come close to outright killing it on average with each cast if done by the high LD caster types.

Synnister
08-09-2010, 03:20
According to the rules for models that use multiple profiles, when required to use a characteristic you use the highest one. So what makes you think that you can disregard that rule in the BRB?

CaliforniaGamer
08-09-2010, 03:25
According to the rules for models that use multiple profiles, when required to use a characteristic you use the highest one. So what makes you think that you can disregard that rule in the BRB?

Spirit leech isnt a characteristic test ergo page 10 "Characteristic Tests" doesnt apply, its simply take your unmodified LD and +d6.

Same with Skaven Strength in Numbers, only applies to LD tests. Spirit Leech isnt a Characteristic Test nor is it a Leadership Test as defined in the brb.

I think that is right.

EDMM
08-09-2010, 03:40
Agreed. Totally right. Model uses model's Ld with no modifiers.

Great against Screaming Bells and other items with Ld0.

Synnister
08-09-2010, 03:44
Sounds shady to me. If you have a rule clearly saying you use the highest characteristic then you'd have to prove that you can violate that rule.

Also, on page 10 it says "If a unit includes models with different Leadership values, always use the one with the highest Leadership -- (fluff)"

While I agree with you that SiN will not help since that modifies the leadership of the model, the leadership of the dwarfs is the leadership of the model while they're around. Look at it this way, say you were using it against a hero on a horse. Which LD would you use? The hero or horse? Answer is you'd use the highest. So if the horse for whatever reason had a higher leadership you'd use it. Same way with monsters and handlers.

Trains_Get_Robbed
08-09-2010, 04:18
I can't see how this can kill Screaming Bells easy, they have a Seer on top with Ld 9? Easy? Not really.

decker_cky
08-09-2010, 04:39
How can the hellcannon use the CD leadership for anything? The CD are ignored for all purposes aside from their attacks in combat and the wound randomization as per the monster and handler rules.

Synnister
08-09-2010, 04:52
Because it is a model with multiple profiles therefore you use the highest.

decker_cky
08-09-2010, 05:18
They're ignored for gaming purposes, aside from unsaved wound randomization and making combat attacks. Using their profile isn't included in that, so the different profile is ignored. I see no reason why M&H units should get to use handler profiles.

Also...even though they make attacks from the monster's base, they aren't the same model.

Munin
08-09-2010, 06:01
I can't see how this can kill Screaming Bells easy, they have a Seer on top with Ld 9? Easy? Not really.

Ld 7 you mean?

Yrrdead
08-09-2010, 06:17
Yes this is an easy way to kill many things. With a relatively low casting value (even boosted). You can pick characters out of units, pick out a hellcannon, pick out a bell. And even though it uses leadership to determine wounds it is in no way shape or form a leadership test or a characteristic test at all.

@Synnister - you are hung up on pg 10. Page 10 is for characteristic tests. This is not a characteristic test.

Synnister
08-09-2010, 08:30
Did you read the quote I posted from the BRB? It says nothing about characteristic test. It says if your unit consists of multiple leaderships you use the highest. Period. Show me something that overrides that very simple rule and I'll agree with you.

Also, at decker, when the hellcannon is required to test for rampage at the start of the turn what leadership is used? the Hellcannon's or the crew? Answer: the highest. Ahhh you gotta love consistency in a very poorly written ruleset.

Teongpeng
08-09-2010, 09:28
Did you read the quote I posted from the BRB? It says nothing about characteristic test. It says if your unit consists of multiple leaderships you use the highest. Period. Show me something that overrides that very simple rule and I'll agree with you.

Also, at decker, when the hellcannon is required to test for rampage at the start of the turn what leadership is used? the Hellcannon's or the crew? Answer: the highest. Ahhh you gotta love consistency in a very poorly written ruleset.models are not units. Leech allows u to pick models even if its within a unit.

But targeting a Ld0 model is too cheezy.

Da Crusha
08-09-2010, 09:39
models are not units. Leech allows u to pick models even if its within a unit.

But targeting a Ld0 model is too cheezy.

but is it a legal move?

dude.sweet101@yahoo.co.uk
08-09-2010, 09:43
So your point is that the highest Ld is not a modifier but a rule in it's own right.
We WFB players are well habitualised to this rule and I agree that most people will see that and feel comfortable.

RAW (another Jarvis J monstrosity) allows no other interpretation than what is written on the card, however blatently broken it may seem.I hope it gets FAQ'd.
Magic really needs it's own FAQ.

I have just finished my Helcannon....no really..just varnished the bugger.......

(darn double Ninja'd)

Mid'ean
08-09-2010, 10:47
Sounds shady to me. If you have a rule clearly saying you use the highest characteristic then you'd have to prove that you can violate that rule.

Also, on page 10 it says "If a unit includes models with different Leadership values, always use the one with the highest Leadership -- (fluff)"

While I agree with you that SiN will not help since that modifies the leadership of the model, the leadership of the dwarfs is the leadership of the model while they're around. Look at it this way, say you were using it against a hero on a horse. Which LD would you use? The hero or horse? Answer is you'd use the highest. So if the horse for whatever reason had a higher leadership you'd use it. Same way with monsters and handlers.

You must have missed the bold letters that started each section on pg 10. Characteristic TEST....Leadership TEST......As stated before, spirit leech is not a test.

Da Crusha
08-09-2010, 11:48
probably a stupid question but is unmodified leadership ever defined? I would imagine no modifiers of any kind, pluses or minuses. but what about using the general's unmodified leadership via inspiring presence?

Haravikk
08-09-2010, 12:04
probably a stupid question but is unmodified leadership ever defined? I would imagine no modifiers of any kind, pluses or minuses. but what about using the general's unmodified leadership via inspiring presence?
The way inspiring presence is worded you probably could, as the model gets to use the general's leadership as their own.

I dunno about this one, there are a lot of very broken, very overpowered spells at the moment which isn't too great. For spirit leech I would say the hellcannon should use the Chaos Dwarf' leadership as they're not really a unit in a normal sense, they're a single model for all major intents and purposes.
Just as a Plague Furnace or Screaming Bell is a mount, but then the Skaven FAQ points out that it instantly fails, when precedent for all other similar things suggests you would use a character or crew's stats instead.

The real question to ask isn't "is it RAW", but "is it cheesy", I mean if you pop someone's 200 point Screaming Bell on turn one, is that going to be fun for the other player, or ruin their day?

mishari26
08-09-2010, 14:24
Did you read the quote I posted from the BRB? It says nothing about characteristic test. It says if your unit consists of multiple leaderships you use the highest. Period. Show me something that overrides that very simple rule and I'll agree with you.

Also, at decker, when the hellcannon is required to test for rampage at the start of the turn what leadership is used? the Hellcannon's or the crew? Answer: the highest. Ahhh you gotta love consistency in a very poorly written ruleset.

I see what you're trying to say, but still. Spirit Leech is not a "Leadership Test" either.

the quote you posted was from the "Leadership Tests" section. Spirit Leech isn't one. coz we all know a BSB allows you to reroll any kind of Leadership tests, and we're not gonna claim you can reroll your Spirit Leech roll-off are we? ;)

lacurra
08-09-2010, 15:44
i would say that the spell lets you challange a model in a unit and since most of the "special" mounts count as a model (unit str 2) then you can target the mount so you should be able to target the bell/furnace.

as to the hell cannon, if it has a leadership, then i don't know why you couldn't target it. cheesy...absolutely but seems to be within the rules.

Dragoon999
08-09-2010, 17:09
Inspiring presence is the only way I see to beat spirit leech as IP specifically states all units within 12" use his leadership instead of their own. As IP does not modify their leadership but replaces it.

Also even if you did use this on a monster handler unit......as written I would say you actually could not target the handlers even if you wanted to, at least as the rules specify for monster handlers.

That being said, also by monster handler rules when the monster suffers a wound it is still randomized between the monster and the handlers. Since this is not a multi wound dice roll I would read the rules as saying each wound he takes from the spell has to be randomized(weird)but that is RAW. perhaps thats the balance for the spell, sure you can target the monster but once hes wounded its randomized.(as I said weird):shifty:

CaliforniaGamer
08-09-2010, 17:37
Huh,

isnt replacing one's LD the same as modifying it?

Modify
mod·i·fied, mod·i·fy·ing, mod·i·fies
v.tr.
1. To change in form or character; alter.

Appears so to me.

I think as written Inspiring Presence LD cannot be taken vs. Spirit Leech.
Otherwise, why include the language "unmodified", what would that be referring other than character's LD for a unit, Inspiring Presence etc....

decker_cky
08-09-2010, 18:07
Agreed. No inspiring presence. The only way to protect is with ward saves and magic resistance.

CaliforniaGamer
08-09-2010, 18:53
Thanks
To sum up this thread so far: Spirit leech melts hellcannons, Skaven without SiN, hydras (although regen is allowed), zombie dragons (ouch..), manticores, dark pegasi and a number of low LD creatures.

Haravikk
08-09-2010, 21:34
isnt replacing one's LD the same as modifying it?
Strictly speaking I'm not sure it's a replacement? The wording is "may use the general's leadership as their own", so nothing actually happens to their own leadership; they just use the general's in any circumstance they'd be called upon to do anything leadership related.

lacurra
09-09-2010, 00:52
Thanks
To sum up this thread so far: Spirit leech melts hellcannons, Skaven without SiN, hydras (although regen is allowed), zombie dragons (ouch..), manticores, dark pegasi and a number of low LD creatures.

well put. basically if you are using any of those, some dispel scrolls would be well advised :P

Da Crusha
09-09-2010, 02:19
dispel scrolls are limited one per army in 8th.

Dragoon999
09-09-2010, 02:58
Strictly speaking I'm not sure it's a replacement? The wording is "may use the general's leadership as their own", so nothing actually happens to their own leadership; they just use the general's in any circumstance they'd be called upon to do anything leadership related.

actually it does not say (may use) in the wording their is no option given, if your within 12" of the general you use his leadership.

Symrivven
09-09-2010, 08:33
Thanks
To sum up this thread so far: Spirit leech melts hellcannons, Skaven without SiN, hydras (although regen is allowed), zombie dragons (ouch..), manticores, dark pegasi and a number of low LD creatures.

I agree with you about the monster and handlers and free monsters, But I have my doubt about the manticores, dark pegasi, and other ridden monsters (dark pegi is even a monstrous cavalry).

As far as I know (but I could have missed something) the monster and its rider can't be affected separately unless, your shooting at it with the sniper special rule or are allocating attacks in hth. As spirit leach targets the model I assume you are allowed to use the highest leadership and then randomize the wounds between rider and monster.
Unless there is a rule (which I missed) that allows effects that target a model to target separate parts of the model.

The rules for cavalry (monstrous cavalry also follow these rules) are even clearer imo, they state the mounts leadership is never used unless stated otherwise. As the spell doesn't specify you can target the mount separately from the rider (only the model) I think its clear you test on the riders leadership.

Haravikk
09-09-2010, 10:44
actually it does not say (may use) in the wording their is no option given, if your within 12" of the general you use his leadership.
Still, they're not modifying their leadership, they're ignoring it as they are forced to use the general's leadership.

Mid'ean
09-09-2010, 11:49
Is a character/monstrous mount considered a unit for game purposes? I would think so. And the spell says you can even target characters in units. So if going by that, you can target the rider individually or the monster. It seems people are getting hung on on the whole "what is a model". Is it the some of its pieces or 1 whole model. I have a dragon...1 model. I have a Lord...1 model. Now I put them together I have 2 models combined into "1 bigger model". Each can exist on their own. So can be targeted on their own...RAW and RAI in my opinion.

As for monstrous cav and regular cav models, Symrivven has it dead on...The rules for cavalry (monstrous cavalry also follow these rules) are even clearer imo, they state the mounts leadership is never used unless stated otherwise. As the spell doesn't specify you can target the mount separately from the rider (only the model) I think its clear you test on the riders leadership.

TheTrueSloth
09-09-2010, 11:57
Sorry to butt in guys, don't know if this was mentioned but this was in the GW RBRB FAQ:


Q: Can spells that pick out individual models, even if they are in a
unit, choose what is hit when targeting a model with multiple
locations? For example The Fate of Bjuna is cast at an Orc Warboss
on a Wyvern, the caster can choose to target the Warboss or the
Wyvern and it will be resolved against the Toughness of the target.
(Reference)
A: Yes.

So yes, you can - rather hilariously - spirit Leech the Hellcannon rather than the Chaos Dwarves. Seriously, some of you people have deliciously evil minds :D

Toodles

Stumpy
09-09-2010, 12:01
Yes, target them individually. You're targetting a single guy, so you target a single guy. You use that guys unmodified leadership. Follow the rules, its pretty simple.
Target the hellcannon, what's the hellcannon's leadership? Oh yeah, 4. You use that. It uses the dwarves for leadership tests but that's not its unmodified leadership.
If you cast caress of laniph on a wizard in a unit with a combat character, he doesn't get to use the combat dude's strength.

Symrivven
09-09-2010, 12:09
So ridden monsters and monster and handler monsters can be picked, chariots can be picked from underneath a character (though the leadership difference will generally be small).

But cavalry and monstrous cavalry will be "safe" as you can still test on the riders ld.

Death magic just got more interesting imo.

Althwen
09-09-2010, 14:41
geez, I can already see my hellcannons go *pop*
Makes me a sad panda :(

Mid'ean
09-09-2010, 14:58
Just gotta make the the little pointy hat who has this spell goes pop soonest before he gets near....:skull:

D'Haran
09-09-2010, 15:14
Just read the thread, I like you guys, this spirit leech thing was like a Christmas present as I gear up for 2nd round of 'ard boyz against at least 2 Skaven lists with bells.

Symrivven
09-09-2010, 15:30
It does appear that the Screeming Bell/Plague Furnace are indeed doomed when leached. All I could find about it is this:

Q. What is the Leadership value of a Screaming Bell/Plague
Furnace? (p43 & p48)
A. Ld 0.

Nothing that it can't be targeted separately or something like that, only a confirmation that it really sucks when it comes down to its leadership.

Cast this whit a vampire lord on one of these and you have a minimum of 5 and maximum of 10 wounds with only ward saves allowed. A well its not worse than the signature metal spell can do to chaos knights for example.

CaliforniaGamer
09-09-2010, 16:14
FYI
Before we go dancing in the streets about all the dead Screaming Bells...they do have a 2+ ward vs. these wounds. (MR+Ward).

Hellcannons, manticores, plague furnaces etc are all very easily killed though. With a simple L1 Lore of Death caster you can wreck crazy damage.

Symrivven
09-09-2010, 17:46
Even better, then there isn't anything really unbalanced about it.

Mid'ean
09-09-2010, 18:19
FYI
Before we go dancing in the streets about all the dead Screaming Bells...they do have a 2+ ward vs. these wounds. (MR+Ward).

Hellcannons, manticores, plague furnaces etc are all very easily killed though. With a simple L1 Lore of Death caster you can wreck crazy damage.

Yeah, but yah gotta remember that L1 still has to cast the spell and not have it dispelled.....:eyebrows:

TheKingInYellow
09-09-2010, 18:43
I don't have my BRB at work with me, but do the rules for Monsters and Handlers not specifically state that the 'handlers cannot be affected seperately from the monster'? The scenario with things like the Manticore and Furnace/Bell are completely different because they are ridden monsters.

Take the cannonball example. If a cannonball hits a rider on a manticore, both are affected. If it hits the Hellcannon, you are only hitting one model for all intents and purposes, and you use their rules for randomizing wounds. Like warmachines, there is only one model on the table and the 'crew' don't really exist for the purposes of shooting and targeting. It has a multiple profiles so you use the highest, end of story.

TheKingInYellow
09-09-2010, 18:51
Sorry to butt in guys, don't know if this was mentioned but this was in the GW RBRB FAQ:


Q: Can spells that pick out individual models, even if they are in a
unit, choose what is hit when targeting a model with multiple
locations? For example The Fate of Bjuna is cast at an Orc Warboss
on a Wyvern, the caster can choose to target the Warboss or the
Wyvern and it will be resolved against the Toughness of the target.
(Reference)
A: Yes.

So yes, you can - rather hilariously - spirit Leech the Hellcannon rather than the Chaos Dwarves. Seriously, some of you people have deliciously evil minds :D

Toodles

This doesn't make sense. The rules for ridden monsters have nothing to do with the rules for monsters and handlers.

CaliforniaGamer
09-09-2010, 19:39
I don't have my BRB at work with me, but do the rules for Monsters and Handlers not specifically state that the 'handlers cannot be affected seperately from the monster'? The scenario with things like the Manticore and Furnace/Bell are completely different because they are ridden monsters.

Take the cannonball example. If a cannonball hits a rider on a manticore, both are affected. If it hits the Hellcannon, you are only hitting one model for all intents and purposes, and you use their rules for randomizing wounds. Like warmachines, there is only one model on the table and the 'crew' don't really exist for the purposes of shooting and targeting. It has a multiple profiles so you use the highest, end of story.

actually the brb states you ignore the handlers specifically aside from wound randomization. Even better case, the LD tested is that of the monster itself (which is usually crappy, lets admit).

I think this is settled precedent though given the FAQs.

TheKingInYellow
09-09-2010, 19:40
Even better case, the LD tested is that of the monster itself (which is usually crappy, lets admit).


In what case are they showing a monster taking a LD test?


I think this is settled precedent though given the FAQs.

How so? The FAQ example above is for a *ridden monster* and has nothing to do with monsters and handlers. That's like using a FAQ about the combat phase to try and divine a ruling for the shooting phase.

decker_cky
09-09-2010, 20:08
TheKingInYellow....you're looking at it the wrong way. This has nothing to do with affecting the handlers. The handlers are not a part of the monster's model. There's a special rule that can pass wounds from the monster to the handlers, and the handlers have a special rule letting them attack from the monster's base, but never are the handlers referred to as part of the monster's model (notice how they literally aren't).

Wounds from spirit leech would still randomize to handlers I'm pretty sure (except for the hydra).

TheKingInYellow
09-09-2010, 20:11
But why are you completely ignoring the rules for multiple profiles?

decker_cky
09-09-2010, 20:13
I'm not. You're misreading it. If you target a model, you use that model's best stat. If you target a unit, you use that unit's best stat. It's not the best worded rule, but that's what it means.

TheKingInYellow
09-09-2010, 20:15
Hmm, I'm not saying I'm right here, but it just seems odd to me that a Hellcannon uses the CD's leadership for everything *except* one spell from the lore of death...

I'll give it a thorough re-read tonight.

decker_cky
09-09-2010, 20:24
I didn't argue it because it's a totally different topic, and is irrelevant in this case, but I don't think a hellcannon can ever use the CD's leadership. CD's are ignored aside from wound randomization and attacking in combat as per the monster and handler rules. No reason why their statline shouldn't be ignored for a leadership test.

TheKingInYellow
09-09-2010, 20:25
Then it would be utterly useless.

decker_cky
09-09-2010, 20:27
It'd still be a T6 3d6" 360 degree charging monster on most turns, and if kept near the general could shoot pretty often (or advance 12" freely), so I really don't think it would come off any worse (just different).

But this isn't arguing utility, it's arguing what the rules say.

TheKingInYellow
09-09-2010, 20:33
Actually, just checking the WoC book and the rule is "At the beginning of the turn, if the Hellcannon is not in combat, take a Leadership test for the unit."

I think we can both agree that the test is against the unit, not the monster's, so you take the highest, yes?

decker_cky
09-09-2010, 20:35
For any non-monster and handler unit, that would be so. In this case...the handlers are ignored because they're ignored for most gaming purposes (aside from the things listed in the M&H rules).

TheKingInYellow
09-09-2010, 20:36
Okay, now you are just being ridiculous. Why would they specify the 'unit' then?

decker_cky
09-09-2010, 20:38
Written for an old edition.

TheKingInYellow
09-09-2010, 20:38
You must be loads of fun to play with.

decker_cky
09-09-2010, 20:47
You must be loads of fun to play with.

Cute. I make a rules based argument and you counter by attacking my character. This is a rules forum where debates about stuff like this belongs.

I'm all ears if anyone has any reasoning for why it wouldn't be, but I can't find any backing for why the statline of the dwarves wouldn't be ignored by the monster and handler rules. This actually for movement lets the hellcannon use it's movement 6, rather than the chaos dwarfs movement 3, so it's not all loss.

Mid'ean
09-09-2010, 21:21
Actually, just checking the WoC book and the rule is "At the beginning of the turn, if the Hellcannon is not in combat, take a Leadership test for the unit."

I think we can both agree that the test is against the unit, not the monster's, so you take the highest, yes?

You are correct here. For when you have to take a leadership TEST, you use their LD. You are not taking a test when you resolve the spell. Like was argued multiple post back, it has nothing to do with LD test so that particular quote has nothing to do with the original question. And the FAQ pretty well answered the original OP question.

TheKingInYellow
09-09-2010, 22:15
Cute. I make a rules based argument and you counter by attacking my character. This is a rules forum where debates about stuff like this belongs.

I'm not attacking your character, I'm simply stating that someone who goes to such length to find and exploit a loophole in the rules would not be a lot of fun to play against. It's like a VC player claiming that ethereal units can't crumble because crumbling is not a magical attack.

At some point it is no longer about the proper application of the rule, and instead it's an easter egg hunt to screw over your opponent.

Dragoon999
09-09-2010, 22:28
You are correct here. For when you have to take a leadership TEST, you use their LD. You are not taking a test when you resolve the spell. Like was argued multiple post back, it has nothing to do with LD test so that particular quote has nothing to do with the original question. And the FAQ pretty well answered the original OP question.

I think a lot of people are getting hung up on the handlers being ignored like they don't exist, the monster handler rule says we ignore them for MOST gaming purposes and use the monster as the EXTENT of the unit.

Then it goes on to explain the circumstances they are ignored in, although I agree that the monster can be targeted for whatever reason and by BRB actually MUST be targeted, I believe all their reference is to the physical representation of the unit(as their examples describe).

Therefore I see no reason why the handlers can be ignored when said UNIT is called upon to test for anything leadership based as they are still part of the unit and therefore the UNIT must use the highest leadership in said unit(skinks)pg. 10

Now if a spell targets a model then the monster is screwed as he can be singled out in this way, however anything targeting the unit is actually targeting the unit, not the monster model itself.

Also because of BRB, you may target the monster with spirit leech but the wounds caused will still be randomized(weird).

I do agree GW needs to clarify this in an FAQ so everyone can get along:)

decker_cky
09-09-2010, 22:34
@TheKingInYellow: Don't judge how people are in real life by how they analyze rules. The reason to pick out rules like that is to know what the argument is, and figure out if there is a loophole, or whether it was misunderstood. The ethereal is an excellent example, because people finding that loophole resulted in GW learning about it and correcting it.


I think a lot of people are getting hung up on the handlers being ignored like they don't exist, the monster handler rule says we ignore them for MOST gaming purposes and use the monster as the EXTENT of the unit.

Then it goes on to explain the circumstances they are ignored in, although I agree that the monster can be targeted for whatever reason and by BRB actually MUST be targeted, I believe all their reference is to the physical representation of the unit(as their examples describe).

The rules start by saying they're ignored for most circumstances, then the rest of the rules show where they aren't ignored.

Dragoon999
09-09-2010, 22:47
Your missing the part before it says they are ignored for most gaming purposes.

The handlers arent really a combat unit per say, then it says they are ignored for most gaming purposes....actually in the examples it shows how they ARE ignored.

1. cannot be targeted-example of how they are ignored (they don't exist as a combat unit)they can still be accidentally wounded(randomize wounds)
2. the handlers have their hands full with the monster so may not shoot or cast.-example of how they are ignored(once again combat related)
3. they are referred to as battlefield markers-example of how they are ignored
4. No example suggests that their leadership does not exist, actually quite the opposite. In the one example it states they do exist, it refers to the monster reaction test(leadership) taken AFTER all the handlers are dead. This is the 1 example that states they do exist in game(besides close combat where they may only attack)and its around a leadership based example.

O.K. thats all I have to say on the subject, if you don't agree then you just don't agree.:cool:

TheKingInYellow
09-09-2010, 23:04
First off I am not judging you, but I question the value of this sort of Easter egg hunt. You have potentially uncovered an I win button against several high point units. That's not really helping the other player enjoy their hobby, you know?

The other issue here is how the hellcannon is clearly designed to work. The high LD on the CDs is clearly designed to represent a measure of control over the cannon, preventing it from rampaging turn after turn, until the dwarves are slain and the cannon goes nuts. They are there, essentially, to lend their leadership to the cannon. This little rules oversight throws that entire mechanic out the window. It feels wrong, what can I say.

In the case of the bell/furnace units that have no leadership automatically fail characteristic tests. As pointed out before this spell does not cause a leadership test so how can you determine what you are rolling against?

Ender Shadowkin
10-09-2010, 00:32
First off I am not judging you, but I question the value of this sort of Easter egg hunt. You have potentially uncovered an I win button against several high point units. That's not really helping the other player enjoy their hobby, you know?


I'm kinda baffled by your interpretation here. And yeah, you do seam to be getting agressive agains Decker, and though you turn right around and say you are not.

This is clearly how the spirit leach spell is supposed to work. Just because you don't like how it effects one of your units is no reason to call it a loophole. 8th is packed full of nasty spells. This one is excellent for dealing with monsters of all sorts. The Hell cannon is particularly lucky in that you can pack it away in the corner away from all kinds of nasty spells. A wizard casting Soul leach has to go after it, its got a short range. Other monsters are typically "up field" and stuck out in the open to get Pendelumed, plagued, dwelered and purple sunned just like the rest of the warhammer world.

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 00:50
I had something siilar to this come up in a game today, and nfortunately beyond fighting in close combat the handlers don't do anything for a hydra- it's Ld6.

Similar to how a Hellcannon is Ld4.

The rulebook says to treat the monster itself as the extent of the unit, and the rulebook does indeed also say to use the highest value if there are several in the unit. Unfortunately, this is not the case for the hydra- there is only one model in the unit, so that is the ld you use for Spirit Leech, break tests and panic tests.

TheKingInYellow
10-09-2010, 00:58
Okay, well I'm not trying to attack anyone, so I'll just back off. I would really like to see this FAQ'd though.

However tmarichards, you certainly use the Beastmaster's LD for break and panic tests. Those are LD tests and the rule is clear on multiple profiles and LD tests.

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 01:01
The rules are indeed clear, but unfortunately the monsters and handlers section states that the hydra itself is the extent of the unit- therefore just the one profile.

Really hurts Hellcannons...

TheKingInYellow
10-09-2010, 01:12
Read page 10 on characteristics tests though.

Synnister
10-09-2010, 01:13
How is that a unit (hellcannon and handlers) is not a unit with multiple profiles? Which the rules clearly say you use the highest LD. Also, if the monster was the extent of the unit and you only use it's profile, then do the handlers get to use the monsters profile when they attack in CC?

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 01:15
Because the Hellcannon model is the everything in the unit.

The handlers are not part of the unit.

So there's just the one profile.

The rules are indeed very clear on using the highest ld, but this isn't the case for the Hellcannon/hydra- it's just the one model, with a dew wound counters and arbitrary attacks. The monster and handler rules are also very clear.

TheKingInYellow
10-09-2010, 01:16
Yeah there is far too much being read into that. As far as I can see, they are mostly referencing the location of the physical models on the table. If the hydra is the extent of the unit how are the beastmasters attacking? Why even have a profile?

The rule about 'wound counters' is from the war machine rules!

Synnister
10-09-2010, 01:17
Awesome so you just gave a hellcannon +3 attacks.

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 01:18
Because it specifically gives the beastmasters leave to attack, as well as how wounds can be allocated onto them. This is the exception to them being ignore for gaming purposes.

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 01:20
Unfortunately, the rulebook refers the handlers making their own attacks- they don't just add to the monsters profile. This is why they have their own profile.

Synnister
10-09-2010, 01:23
But previously you said that the monster's profile is the only one that counts. Now you're saying the handlers count in this instance. That's contradictory. So, which is it? Is it one profile using the monsters or is it multiple profiles in a single unit? Basically, with the rules we have and the interpretation you've given, we have a hellcannon that gets 3 additional attacks with its profile.

TheKingInYellow
10-09-2010, 01:23
Unfortunately, the rulebook refers the handlers making their own attacks- they don't just add to the monsters profile. This is why they have their own profile.

So you admit that it has multiple profiles then? Great, read page 10 again.

Synnister
10-09-2010, 01:24
If the unit has 2 profiles then it has guess what .... multiple profiles then it falls into the unit with multiple profiles on pg 10 for LD tests.

Yrrdead
10-09-2010, 01:32
Okay lets give a quick example on the way Spirit Leech will effect a Hellcannon.

Assuming a caster with LD 8 casts the spell successfully.

Caster = 8 + D6
Hellcannon = 4 + D6

Lets assume both roll 4. This leaves us with 4 wounds on the Hellcannon. Now the Hellcannon would roll for each wound. On a 5+ a Chaos Dwarf(handler) is removed.

That's it.

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 01:36
I'm afraid not.

The hydra/hellcannon is the unit, with the only profile you use. Read pg 73.

I addition to this, in combat, you can use the WS, I, A and S of the handlers as the only exception to this except for wound randomisation.

So, to recap:

According to pg 10, if there are multiple profiles then you use the highest.

Are the handlers considered to be part of the unit for any purpose beyond close combat attacks and wound randomisation? No, because pg73 of the rulebook states that monster itself is the extent of the unit, except for situations.

Are there therefore multiple profiles? No.

Is the fox I can yowling outside part of the unit? No, because pg 73 of the rulebook says that only the monster itself is the extent of the unit.

Are there multiple profiles? No.

Am I a part of the unit, because I can run round in circlesmaking monster noises playing in a very immature fashion with a lighter? No, because pg 73 of the rulebook says that only the monster itself is he extent of the unit.

But I really want to be part of it! Does that mean that because I really really really really want this to be the case there are multiple profiles? No.

By your logic, the hydra handlers each have 7 attacks at S5. A hydra is I5 for Purple Sun and for the order it strikes in combat. Surely, you can see the ridiculousness that ensues if you don't apply the exception to the rule that comes about through combat and wound allocation?

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 01:38
Due to the time it took me write my post it came after Yrrdead's, +1 to his and treat the first line of mine as if there was no intervening post

TheKingInYellow
10-09-2010, 01:46
What? Leadership tests are a *SPECIAL CASE* that specifically allows you to use the highest of the multiple profiles within a unit. Other characteristic tests are not the same unless it is a single model with multiple profiles.

Besides, nowhere in the rules for monsters and handlers does it tell you that the unit does not have multiple profiles. If it did not have multiple profiles, how would you determine the initiative, weapon skill, and strength of the handlers attacks? You use their profile all the time!

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 01:47
It does indeed say it had just the one profile, under were you treat the monster itself as the extent of the unit.

TheKingInYellow
10-09-2010, 01:49
The word 'profile' does not appear *once* in the entire section on monsters and handlers. You are just making a huge assumption based on the phrase 'most gaming purposes'.

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 01:53
I don't think it needs to mention profile. By saying that you treat the monster itself as the extent of the unit, it's saying that you don't include the profile of the handler, manticore, dragon, rider, harpy or anything else in that. Why? Because they're not part of the unit. Nor are the handlers part of the unit. It's just the monster. If it's not part of the unit, how can you use the profile?

Dragoon999
10-09-2010, 01:58
I have a lot of simple examples to prove handlers have a profile.

Look at all the different units in the bestiary in the back of the rulebook, check out all the combined units like chariots, screaming bells etc. etc. now look at monster handler units.

If they did not have a profile they would look like this-lets use the salamander as an example.

M WS BS S T W I A Ld Type
- --2 -- -3 -- -4 1 - -

Thats what the skinks would look like if they did not have an individual profile

The only thing the Monster handler rule stops from happening is handlers

1.being targeted for any reason whatsoever
2.being able to shoot or cast
3.being able to impede movement
these are things they cannot do

why do they look like this

M WS BS S T W I A Ld Type
6 - 2 - 3 -3 2-1-4-1 -6 -

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 02:04
Whether handlers have a profile or not is not even relevant.

Because they're not part of the unit.

And, once again it shall be said.

They are not part of the unit.

A third time.

The units in question of which we argue.

A part of it, they are not.

Dragoon999
10-09-2010, 02:06
If they are not part of the unit they cant take wounds
If they are not part of the unit they cannot attack

I could repeat myself over and over, but I don't see the point

TheKingInYellow
10-09-2010, 02:06
Whether handlers have a profile or not is not even relevant.

Because they're not part of the unit.

And, once again it shall be said.

They are not part of the unit.

A third time.

The units in question of which we argue.

A part of it, they are not.

How, then, are wounds randomized onto the handlers if they are not part of the unit?

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 02:10
How, then, are wounds randomized onto the handlers if they are not part of the unit?

At last, a lifeline! A glimmer that maybe I'm getting through!

The handlers can take wounds because it's one of the exceptions that the rulebook gives that allows them to participate in the game.

The second is allowing them to make close combat attacks.

This is an exhaustive list of when they are allowed to take part in the game.

TheKingInYellow
10-09-2010, 02:17
Your flaw is that you think that the few points made in the handlers section are complete and exclusive of all other interactions between the handlers and the game. By that logic handlers can not move since it is not explicitly spelled out in that section.

Handlers are part of a monsters unit, with some restrictions on how they can attack, be wounded and be targeted. That's it.

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 02:25
Handlers don't move, or take armour saves. It specifically says to ignore them for most gaming purposes including movement, and any saves that need to be taken are taken before randomisation.

You can play the game perfectly happily without having a model to represent the handler on the board. That's exactly hw relevant they are.

And they are not part of the monsters unit. I really don' see how it can be assumed otherwise when I quote 'The handler's aren't really a combat unit per se, so we ignore them for most gaming purposes, treating the monster itself as the extent of the unit' pg 73.

I'm sorry to be so blunt in a discussion, but your line 'Handler's are part of a monsters unit' is simply wrong. There's no interpretation required, it's just contrary to what the rulebook spells out. I belive that with such a fundamental error, maybe your flaw is that you haven't read the rules adequately?

A handler is a 'battlefield marker or counter' (pg 73) and so plays the same relevance- you use it when it is meant to be used, such as the token for a Comet of Cassandora, and ignore it for all other purposes.

A handler token is used for wound randomisation, and attacks in close combat.

Synnister
10-09-2010, 02:30
Handlers are bought as part of the monster unit. The unit consists of the monster and their handlers. This unit has multiple profiles and per pg 10 uses the highest LD when taking LD tests. To say that the handlers is not part of the unit means they have to 1" apart from the monster and you'd not be able to apply wounds to them. Also, they'd not be able to attack if you charged with your monster since they are not part of the unit. As a matter of fact since they're not part of the monster unit then they'd be able to go charging off in different directions and get to use the monster's profile since that's the only one that exists. Awesome, you get 4 hellcannons for the price of one. This is quite possibly the silliest argument I've ever heard. See these are the extensions of the argument you are trying to put forth.

TheKingInYellow
10-09-2010, 02:34
Handlers don't move

So the models stay at the deployment spot no matter what happens. Got it. I'm sure that's exactly what GW intended.

You are drawing an arbitrary line because of the phrase 'most gaming purposes'. You don't throw out absolutely everything because of that, most does not mean all. They still have a profile, they still have a leadership, leadership tests take the highest leadership amongst mixed profiles.

You admit they have a profile, because they use it constantly in the game. You use their weapon skill, attacks, initiative, wounds, strength. You don't use armour save or toughness because their is a rule that wounds are randomized post-save. You don't use their ballistic skill because there is a rule that they can not shoot. Both of those exceptions are noted in the handlers section. Where is the exception saying they can not use their leadership?

These exceptions define the unique relationship between monster and handler. There is no exception saying that their leadership is thrown out.

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 02:35
You're wrong. It's just that simple.

Stop ignoring the direct quotation from the rulebook.

The handlers are not part of the unit, because the rulebook says otherwise.

They are not the extensions of my argument that I'm tryig to put forward, my argument is rooted in the very clear wording of the rulebook. Simply trying to discredit mine does not make yours any less wrong.

The monster itself is treated as the extent of the unit. The rulebook says so. How on earth can you possibly think that anything else is part of the unit, when this is what the rulebook clearly states?

The unit consists of the monster. The handlers are now just tokens.

TheKingInYellow
10-09-2010, 02:37
Page ten of the rulebook. The direction quotation for that contradicts you. Stop ignoring it.

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 02:42
I don't think I've missed anything, but just in case I'm being dense can you supply the quotation please?

nearchus
10-09-2010, 02:52
Handlers are bought as part of the monster unit. The unit consists of the monster and their handlers. This unit has multiple profiles and per pg 10 uses the highest LD when taking LD tests. To say that the handlers is not part of the unit means they have to 1" apart from the monster and you'd not be able to apply wounds to them. Also, they'd not be able to attack if you charged with your monster since they are not part of the unit. As a matter of fact since they're not part of the monster unit then they'd be able to go charging off in different directions and get to use the monster's profile since that's the only one that exists. Awesome, you get 4 hellcannons for the price of one. This is quite possibly the silliest argument I've ever heard. See these are the extensions of the argument you are trying to put forth.

Actually, the book specifically covers the issues you're bringing up. Where can the handlers be placed with respect to the monster? It doesn't matter. If they're in the way or blocking line of sight you move them. You can place them anywhere you like. They cannot charge because they are not a unit on their own. They are simply markers on the Monster & Handler unit. As markers they represent the unit's ability to soak up a few extra hits (as per the rule explaining how to randomize hits) and make extra attacks with the profile given for them. In this section it doesn't mention that you're allowed to do anything else with them, and so you aren't allowed to use them for any other purpose.

With that said, I agree that they certainly intend you to be able to use the leadership of the handlers. But I haven't heard a persuasive argument that this is what the rules actually say.

TheKingInYellow
10-09-2010, 02:52
'If a unit includes models with different Leadership values, always use the one with the highest Leadership values'

Before you once again go back to your 'they aren't part of the unit', they demonstrably are. Read the *full* quote from page 73:

'The handlers aren't really a combat unit per se, so we ignore them for most gaming purposes, treating the monster as the extent of the unit."

This does not say that they are not part of the unit, this says that for *most* (not all) purposes treat the monster as the extent of the unit. It then goes on to explain all the various ways that you treat the handlers differently than a standard unit.

By default any and all models are part of the unit they are purchased with, this is the default state of a model. This is giving you a list of exceptions where they are not used as a standard part of the unit but instead use special rules, and under no circumstances does it say that they are not part of the unit.

Read that quote again, explain to me how you come to the conclusion that they are not part of the unit. The models don't just vanish!

Here is the logical equivalent to that argument:

- Most ravens are black.
- One raven is white.

Is the white raven a raven or not? 'Most' is in no way, shape or form exclusive.

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 02:56
They aren't part of the model, because the rulebook says that they are ignored for most gaming purposes (and then goes on to give the exceptions listed below), and that the end up 'treating the monster itself as the extent of the unit'

That doesn't include the handlers, and as much as I wish I didn't now have to keep my general and BSB in range of my hydras, thems the rules. I also agree it perhaps doesn't make sense, that they're able to control it to move where they want it to go (from a fluff point of view), but again- thems the rules.

The unit has only the hydra in it, so there's no other models to use any value for beyond it's own profile.

TheKingInYellow
10-09-2010, 03:00
I still don't know why you think most = all. The list of exceptions is not the list of the *only ways* the handlers are used, it is the list of special rules that apply when using the handlers. Nothing in that section says that they are completely non-existent otherwise.

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 03:09
Sweetie, I've not been saying that they're ignored for all gaming purposes. I've pointed out several times that they are used for wound randomisation, and for close combat attacks. This isn't ignoring them for all gaming purposes, instead it follows the rulebook nd merely ignores them for 'most'.

They're not part of the unit, and aren't their own unit. In order to fix this conundrum, the rulebook tells you when they can participate in the game. It's not very much, granted but it does indeed tell you when they can be used.

It really is a simple as it looks- they're just not part of the hydra unit, as counter-intuitive as this may seem. But, thems the rules until GW change it.

nearchus
10-09-2010, 03:11
Here is the logical equivalent to that argument:

- Most ravens are black.
- One raven is white.

Is the white raven a raven or not? 'Most' is in no way, shape or form exclusive.

That's an excellent logical equivalent. Applied to the rule at hand:

-For most purposes the monster is the extent of the unit.
-When the unit is wounded, randomize between monsters and handlers.
-When in close combat, the handlers are allowed to attack.
-Handlers never block line of sight, nor do they hinder movement of other units (for all such purposes they are essentially not on the board).

The word "most" isn't exclusive, by definition. But when something is "almost always true" and is followed by a series of exceptions, then when interpreting rules we are held to those exceptions unless it is noted that they are not the only exceptions. An example would be: Most ravens are black. Some ravens are other colors, such as white.

TheKingInYellow
10-09-2010, 03:22
How about this: Most ravens are black, here are three white ravens. Are those the only non-black ravens?

Tell you what, you play your way, I'll play mine. However, when I play strangers, they will have fun because the way I play makes sense. When you play everyone will roll their eyes and hope you don't show up at the shop again next week. Sweetie.

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 03:24
So you mean, despite knowing the rules you'll play otherwise?

That sounds like a much less nice word than sweetie, in fact it begins with 'C' and sounds like the sort of thing healthy breakfast cereals are made out of...

TheKingInYellow
10-09-2010, 03:29
Coats? Cwheat? You eat funny cereals.

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 03:31
Nah dude, obvious reference to the blood god

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 03:32
(It begins with a K but sounds like a C)

Synnister
10-09-2010, 03:35
When you buy your hydra, they come with handlers. The unit in the AB consists of monster plus x number of handlers. The handlers have a separate profile therefore the unit which consists of the monster and the handlers have multiple profiles. If the unit consists of multiple profiles then you use the highest LD present. The rule for Leadership tests doesn't say in some circumstances you use the highest. Since the AB says the unit consists of monster and handlers then they are part of the unit since AB overrides BRB in all instances.

TheKingInYellow
10-09-2010, 03:42
Might as well carry this on in your new thread...

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 03:42
That is a very good point.

There is the contradiction though between the Unit size: 1 war hydra with 2 beastmasters

and the Special rule: Monster and handlers

My first thought is that the unit size simply refers to how many hydras and beastmasters you get per 175pts, and that the special rule tells you how they behave.

I am now a good deal less sure of my postion...

Do you see the point I make there? What do you make of it?

nearchus
10-09-2010, 03:57
That is a very good point.

There is the contradiction though between the Unit size: 1 war hydra with 2 beastmasters

and the Special rule: Monster and handlers

My first thought is that the unit size simply refers to how many hydras and beastmasters you get per 175pts, and that the special rule tells you how they behave.

I am now a good deal less sure of my postion...

Do you see the point I make there? What do you make of it?

I'm unclear what the contradiction is. For the listed purposes that handlers are part of the unit (randomizing wounds and close combat attacks) you need to know how many there are. They are part of the unit for those purposes and for other purposes the monster is the extent of the unit.

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 04:00
The contradiction is that the uit size states that there is a monster and 2 handlers, whereas the rulebook says just the monster counts.

So, is this unit size the complete extent of the unit? Or is it simply telling you what you get for the 175pts? Because if it is thee extent of the unit, then army book takes precedence over rulebook, similar to the lack of wound allocation for a hydra.

Synnister
10-09-2010, 04:05
I believe that the units are currently screwed up in the BRB. They say the handlers don't count except for this and that but fail to give us direction on how to deal with other aspects. I personally like to keep things consistent, therefore if multiple profiles go with the highest LD. Less thinking involved that way. Trying to figure out what the hell GW is going on about with most of their rules is troublesome most of the time.

I do see your point and in the future they may indeed write the handlers with Strength, Weapon skill and Attacks in their profile only. Until they do that you have to follow the rule that multiple leaderships use the highest. For the record, I play against 2 guys and one of them plays WoC with a hellcannon. The ruling you gave helps me immensely however, I think that it is wrong given the current rules we have on the subject.

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 04:12
I've read over it a few times, and here's what I think.

RAW, you ignore the monsters and handlers section in the rulebook because the beastmasters count towards the size of the unit- the wound allocation bit is already irrelevant, but some of it still has to be used because otherwise there is nothing to tell you how to use the handlers in a game.

So, you can ignore the unit size bit, but you still have the bit about them being ignore for most gaming purposes on the grounds that there's no direct rulebook/armybook contradiction, andso have to stick with it.

RAW, this would mean you get to use the Ld of the handlers, but also the I value. So you have a hydra that can dodge a Purple Sun because as it's a characteristic test, you use the handlers. I'm not convinced that GW meant for the majority of the section in the rulebook to be invalidated immediately so RAI I would stick to my original argument. But beyond that, I can't see anything particularly concrete either way because I don't think that one little Unit Size line is meant to be blocking rules.

Add it to the FAQ list...

decker_cky
10-09-2010, 04:34
In no way would it work against purple sun since no matter what, they aren't the same model.

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 04:43
I'm inclined to agree, on the grounds that in hindsight I don't really think there is a contradiction- the unit size just tells you how many hydras and how many handlers you get, and the rulebook tells you how they behave.

This thread must make great reading though...

decker_cky
10-09-2010, 04:53
BTW, there's no contradiction with the rulebook giving you the number of handlers. We know there's a number of handlers as per the monster and handlers rules.

Likewise, when attacks are listed as one of the exceptions which you use handlers for, using those attacks isn't a counterexample for them having two profiles. In fact, they DO have two profiles, but the second profile is ignored for most gaming purposes.

Also, all monster and handler rules have been written in a previous ruleset, so functioning oddly isn't surprising (it was the worst written rule in the previous ruleset). Likewise, repeater bolt throwers have a wound count that isn't used.

Yrrdead
10-09-2010, 07:45
I can't believe that this is still going on.

Page 10 is irrelevant as this isn't a LD test. Period end of story. Spirit Leech causes some wounds on your low LD monster who then uses the M&H rules to pass some of those wounds onto its handlers.

Were all these pages about how abstract handlers are really necessary?

Hmm did I miss something again?

Synnister
10-09-2010, 08:35
So decker since you admit that the unit consists of multiple profiles, how do you violate the clear rule that you use the highest LD for the unit?

nearchus
10-09-2010, 12:40
So decker since you admit that the unit consists of multiple profiles, how do you violate the clear rule that you use the highest LD for the unit?

The Monster is the extent of the unit for other purposes besides wound randomization and close combat attacks (with both having specified rules to go along with them). When you do a leadership test, it is not part of wound randomization or close combat attacking. Therefore the handlers take no part and the monster is the entire unit.

A profile for the handlers is required for both wound randomization (we need to know how many wounds they have) and for close combat attacks (we need to know all sorts of other stats). I know why they included leadership. They clearly meant for leadership of the handlers to be used. (I tend not to use words like "clearly" in rules arguments, but I feel pretty safe here.) But this isn't the rule that they wrote.

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 13:50
Exactly what Nearchus said.

It's nice to finally have some cavalry ride to the rescue.

And of the course the handlers have a profile, otherwise you'd just be making stuff up for them- but, they're not part of the unit which the rulebook explicitly states.

TheKingInYellow
10-09-2010, 13:56
No, you treat the monster as the extent of the unit for *most gaming purposes*. Never, ever, ever does it say handlers are not part of the unit.

Stop making stuff up.

Trains_Get_Robbed
10-09-2010, 13:56
And just to throw this in, if the unit was only one profile. Why would the handlers attacks not be at the base S and I etc. . . of the Hellcannon, or Hydra? If one is assuming the profile for the handlers are arbitrary.

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 14:25
No, you treat the monster as the extent of the unit for *most gaming purposes*. Never, ever, ever does it say handlers are not part of the unit.

Stop making stuff up.

Have you even read the page of the rulebook I've been quoting? Where it quite clearly says that you ignore the handlers for most gaming purposes and treat the monster itself as the extent of the unit? This means that there is NOTHING else in the unit.

Not, For most gaming purposes treat the monster as the extent of the unit. Which is what I think you're trying to argue.

How am I making something up if it appears in the rulebook?

TheKingInYellow
10-09-2010, 14:36
Of course I have read it, however I am not suffering from the delusion that the phrase 'most gaming purposes' removes the handlers from the unit.

Symrivven
10-09-2010, 14:45
The first paragraph states the important ignore the handlers for most gaming purposes part. As has been stated before this doesn't make it 100% certain in which ways they are ignored (as most does not equal always) so you can read the rest of the text in two ways:

1 It states what the handlers can do apart from being ignored.

2 It states in which way the handlers are different from normal models and thus also how they are ignored.

Point 1 Has been covered enough already, but 2 shouldn't be that strange either. The text first explains that in most cases the handlers are ignored. And then goes on explain how they differ from normal units and in which ways they are ignored.

So reading the text with 2 we come along the following points in which the handlers differ from normal models.
-Wounds caused to the monster can be randomly transferred to the handlers.
-If the handlers die the monster makes a monster reaction test.

-Handlers can direct attacks against any enemy in base contact with the monster.
-*fluf part about they are to busy followed by: may do nothing else like shooting or cast spells or other etc.
-They can not be charged, attacked or otherwise affected separately from their monster.**
-They are moved out of los and out of the way of any movement.**
-They are removed with the monster.**

Points marked with ** result in a whole lot of circumstances in which the handlers are ignored this should/could be enough to explain the 'most' in the very first sentence.
Furthermore if the unit would be called to make a (one) leadership test the ld of the handlers can still be used, but if the monster is specifically targeted the not ofc.

Both interpretations have some gaping holes, so one way or an other this rule could use a decent errata or faq.



Warning the next part is subjective and deals with RAI, so don't turn the discussion entirely that way, I know its subjective:
The part I marked with * explains how the handlers are to busy controlling their monster this IMO screams leadership even if you would read it as 1. Feel free to disagree.

09Project
10-09-2010, 15:13
IF the handlers leadership is arbitary and all that, what LD would people use for the rampage test assuming 1 or more CD's are alive? (oh and they are no where near a general)

TheKingInYellow
10-09-2010, 15:16
*IF* that is the case, yeah they'd test on a 4. If that was the intent, why bother even giving them shooting rules since you would only have the option every other game on average?

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 15:17
I agree that they SHOULD be able to use thir leadership, but it's not what the rules say.

I've also yet to see an argument as to why if the hydra can use the ld of the handlers, why it can't use the initiative (for characteristic checks).

The rulebook says that if there are multiple profiles in a unit, then you use the highest. So, if the hydra and handlers were a unit together, then you'd be able to use the Ld and I for the hydra for characteristic tests. So far, I think we can all agree and are all on the same page.

However, pg 73 then states that for most gaming purposes, you treat the monster itself as the extent of the unit. This means that the handlers are not part of the unit, and so you can't use their stat line for characteristic tests.

This is why the rulebook then goes on list the occurences where the handlers are NOT ignored for gaming purposes, which are for wound allocation and close combat atacks. This is why they have their own stat line.

Althwen
10-09-2010, 15:30
In my opinion it all comes down to Spirit Leech being able to 'snipe' units or not.
I don't have my book with me atm, so I can only say that if you're able to single out a model within a unit with the spell, you'd have to use the Hellcannon's (or any other monster) base leadership and not that of the handlers.
If Spirit leech doesn't allow for picking, you'd use the handler's leadership.

Targeting a monster and his handlers is exactly the same as targeting a rank and file unit: you target the unit as a whole! The difference lies in what happens next and how the hits/wounds are distributed.

In the case of Monsters&Handlers, all hits are resolved against the monster and only then passed on (on a 5+) to the handlers. During this process, however, the unit never ceases to function as a unit! This last part means that unless stated otherwise, the highest LD value is used to LD purposes, exactly as if it were a rank and file unit joined by a character with improved LD.

If the spell allowed for picking and included the phrase: "the target's basic LD value" then and only then would one use the Monster's basic LD.

tmarichards
10-09-2010, 15:34
The point which is being overlooked here though is that the monster itself is the extent of the unit according to pg 73- the handlers are ignored for virtually everything exept the situations listed, so you use the hydra's leadership.

09Project
10-09-2010, 15:37
I shall add this wee thing about handlers leadership to the same catagory as a missing 'may' in the inspiring presence rule.

For me you use the highest leadership, handlers are still part of a unit and they have a leadership value so you use it. No FAQ has removed it, the rules say use it.

“Rampage: At the beginning of the turn, if the
Hellcannon is not in combat, take a Leadership test for the
unit. If it passes the test, the unit may behave as normal. If it
fails the test, it may not fire and becomes subject to the
Random Movement (3D6) special rule. When it moves it must
pivot to face the closest enemy unit before it makes its move.”

The FAQ still talks about a 'unit', it didn't feel the need to change the words to "If the Hellcannon is not in combat it must take a leadership test" or "If the Hellcannon is not n combat it must take a leadership test for the monster".

For Spirit Leech itself, I can see both arguements and I will sit on the fence, but on Moster and Handlers, I will happily suggest that Leadership passes.

Yrrdead
10-09-2010, 15:39
In my opinion it all comes down to Spirit Leech being able to 'snipe' units or not.
I don't have my book with me atm, so I can only say that if you're able to single out a model within a unit with the spell, you'd have to use the Hellcannon's (or any other monster) base leadership and not that of the handlers.
If Spirit leech doesn't allow for picking, you'd use the handler's leadership.

Targeting a monster and his handlers is exactly the same as targeting a rank and file unit: you target the unit as a whole! The difference lies in what happens next and how the hits/wounds are distributed.

In the case of Monsters&Handlers, all hits are resolved against the monster and only then passed on (on a 5+) to the handlers. During this process, however, the unit never ceases to function as a unit! This last part means that unless stated otherwise, the highest LD value is used to LD purposes, exactly as if it were a rank and file unit joined by a character with improved LD.

If the spell allowed for picking and included the phrase: "the target's basic LD value" then and only then would one use the Monster's basic LD.


I'm sorry you need to reread the rules for Spirit Leech. You don't target a unit, nor does it force a LD test which is what pg 10 is on about.

On the topic of Monsters and Handlers. Can we please start another thread as this one is getting way off topic and slightly disjointed.

To chime in on the subject. Of course you use the Handler's Leadership for LD tests.

Symrivven has already laid out the salient points on this.

The_Cheat137
10-09-2010, 16:41
I just came across this thread, and wow do I feel like I'm stepping into a minefield.

It seems to me like we're giving far too much weight to the single phrase "treat the monster itself as the extent of the unit." There is an overwhelming amount of evidence, in the rules and in common sense, that contradict that argument.
-The Dark Elf rulebook contains a full profile for handlers and the Hydra
-The DE Rulebook describes the actual unit: 1 Hydra, 2 Handlers.
-There are actual models for the handlers, they come with the Hydra.
-The handlers are...well, Handlers! They control the hydra, their purpose seems to be to give the Hydra Ld8 for panic, break tests, etc. Anything that doesn't single out the Hydra model.

I cannot believe that a reasonable person would ignore all of this to focus on only one passage which is vague and over-generalized in the first place. To do so is to use a very specific version of a very general phrase with the intent of defeating already existing specific definitions, not to mention common sense and apparent intent.

Lord Inquisitor
10-09-2010, 17:39
The Cheat, people are concentrating on this because the fundamental rules have changed since the dark elf book was released. Handlers used to be part of the unit, now they're little more than wound markers. Taking the RAW from an army book written for the last edition where the unit operated entirely differently seems silly. Yes of course the army book entry is obviously written as a unit - but back in 7th they were.

I ran across this before, in my case the question was what initiative does a hellcannon test for purple sun.

The whole thing boils down to a simple question:

Are monsters and handlers a split profile unit or are they a separate unit type and the monster is used for characteristic tests?

TheKingInYellow
10-09-2010, 17:47
But Army books override the BRB regardless of edition.

decker_cky
10-09-2010, 18:00
That doesn't mean anything in this case.

TheKingInYellow
10-09-2010, 18:03
That doesn't mean anything in this case.

Would you care to elaborate on that?

I'm all for the rules saying that you ignore the handlers in most scenarios. I completely disagree that the models suddenly are not part of the unit, period.

decker_cky
10-09-2010, 18:16
They are a part of the unit, in the situations referenced by the monster and handler rules.

TheKingInYellow
10-09-2010, 18:17
They are a part of the unit, in the situations referenced by the monster and handler rules.

So they can't move given that it is not explicitly stated in the monster and handler rules?

decker_cky
10-09-2010, 18:21
Their location doesn't have any effect on the game, so move them freely like you could wound counters.

TheKingInYellow
10-09-2010, 18:23
But the rules don't say that. It says to move them if they block line of sight or if they impede movement. That's probably not a problem if they stay in your deployment zone.

Do you not see how treating this list of situations as complete, explicit and exclusionary is being a bit daft?

decker_cky
10-09-2010, 18:26
Nope. I don't see there being a problem with rules not covering how to move a few counters which have irrelevant locations.

TheKingInYellow
10-09-2010, 18:28
yeah so you are just making up rules as you see fit. Got it.

Althwen
10-09-2010, 19:41
I'm sorry you need to reread the rules for Spirit Leech. You don't target a unit, nor does it force a LD test which is what pg 10 is on about.

I alrdy said I dont have the brb with me and I never said anything about LD tests... I said LD purposes.

Anyway, I think people are taking the new monster & handlers rule to the extremes. Not to say GW did a great job on the wording for this rule, not at all.
But I'll campaign for using the handler's LD in my gaming group, as this seems to make the most sense to me atm.

RanaldLoec
10-09-2010, 19:56
Bloody hell California Gamer why did you have to remind me about the bells magic resistance and ward why WHY!

CaliforniaGamer
10-09-2010, 21:24
Bloody hell California Gamer why did you have to remind me about the bells magic resistance and ward why WHY!

Hahaha!

Sorry, but Im fairly sure your opponent would have reminded you.

TheTrueSloth
10-09-2010, 21:37
The point which is being overlooked here though is that the monster itself is the extent of the unit according to pg 73- the handlers are ignored for virtually everything exept the situations listed, so you use the hydra's leadership.

I'd agree with this for effects like Spirit Leech - afterall you snipe the cannon itself, not the Chaos Dwarves.

For the monster's Ld test though, I would stick with the crew's higher Ld. But that's more to do with the way I play rather than "because RAW says so" specifically.


But the rules don't say that. It says to move them if they block line of sight or if they impede movement. That's probably not a problem if they stay in your deployment zone

I don't have the RBRB so I'll check this later, but I thought the handlers were literally regarded as battlefield tokens?

Toodles

Synnister
10-09-2010, 22:07
It says that the crew for warmachines are treated as battlefield tokens but it doesn't say that about handlers.

TheTrueSloth
10-09-2010, 22:31
It says that the crew for warmachines are treated as battlefield tokens but it doesn't say that about handlers.

Ah, got it. I knew I read that somewhere :)

Toodles

CaptScott
11-09-2010, 02:27
Just jumping into this ol chestnut, but from a fluff perspective I'd argue that a monster shouldn't use its handlers characteristic, the spell uses the ld of the target not the ld of a nearby influence. For example if you targeted a unit champion he couldn't use the leadership of the nearby general, its the same situation.

But as I said that's fluff wise, game wise the handlers should convey their ld and I believe that's the way it was intended.

ChrisIronBrow
11-09-2010, 03:55
Awesome so you just gave a hellcannon +3 attacks.

Actually, if you were to literally read into this rule, then the Hellcannon would gain 18 attacks. 3 Chaos Dwarfs have their stats ignored, but get to attack. So every Hellcannon actually fights like a unit of 4 hellcannons..

Or, you get to use the Chaos Dwarfs stats, including their leadership.

You can either use the stats, or not use the stats. You don't get to have it both ways.

Dragoon999
11-09-2010, 03:59
It says that the crew for warmachines are treated as battlefield tokens but it doesn't say that about handlers.

Actually it refers to them as battlefield markers or counters when referring to them being moved out of someones way.

I agree the monster uses his leadership when targeted, but uses the handlers for any unit based leadership.

sulla
11-09-2010, 06:51
The whole thing boils down to a simple question:

Are monsters and handlers a split profile unit or are they a separate unit type and the monster is used for characteristic tests?It's a pity we couldn't have gotten this thread locked after this LI. Pretty much sums up the problem with the M&H rules.

Symrivven
11-09-2010, 09:19
I already expressed how I think the rules can be read if you treat the handlers as normal except for all the exceptions in the M&H rules.

Now I have one question for the people that want to ignore the handlers in all cases except when mentioned in the M&H rules.

Movement already has been covered that it doesn't really matter where these "markers"are so.

How do the M&H rules deal with deploying the handlers, It doesn't say you do so, so they are not deployed (In this scenario). Then how can you remove them from play, how will wounds be transferred to models/markers that are not part of the battlefield etc.
(ps. even comet of casandora and focus familiar describes how en when the tokens are placed)

In short I'm pretty sure that treating them as normal models and only ignoring them where the M&H section states is the more reasonable option.