PDA

View Full Version : Is a Monster with Handlers still considered a Lone Model?



SiNNiX
30-09-2010, 15:16
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.

So is the Monster still a Lone Model for all rules purposes? Can it still pivot and fire, for example?

a18no
30-09-2010, 15:29
At the end of the BRB, can you find a "monster and handler" type of unit??

Monsters are monsters and follow the rules for monster. Having handlers running around change nothing to the ruling.

SiNNiX
30-09-2010, 15:38
At the end of the BRB, can you find a "monster and handler" type of unit??

Monsters are monsters and follow the rules for monster. Having handlers running around change nothing to the ruling.

In the Lone Model section, it says "units that consist of one model, such as monsters, chariots, etc." The Monster Troop Type isn't referenced as being able to pivot on the spot, just lone models which include most monsters.

a18no
30-09-2010, 15:42
In the Lone Model section, it says "units that consist of one model, such as monsters, chariots, etc." The Monster Troop Type isn't referenced as being able to pivot on the spot, just lone models which include most monsters.

You can think of it like that.

But what about: any monster is a lone mondel? Can you find any "monster" that actually consist of more than one MODEL that count in the game? The rule specificly says that handler are never used for game purpose. Clear for me, don't try to find a loophole, play it like it look.

Problem in rule interpretation ALWAYS come when someone try to find an exception. You are doing it now, sorry.
Handlers NEVER count, never is never.

Happy to help you!

SiNNiX
30-09-2010, 15:56
I wasn't trying to find a loophole, I was just trying to figure it out. Is there any point during the game where a handler can interact with anything? In combat, shooting, positioning of models? Does it count towards the 1" rule for moving close to other models? These are questions I'd ask to determine whether or not they are models and count towards being part of the monster.

Just thought it was something that could be thought about. Thanks for your help, a18no. It's much appreciated.

N810
30-09-2010, 16:02
well they do get to fight in combat,
and in the case of lizardmen .... get eaten.

SiNNiX
30-09-2010, 16:15
well they do get to fight in combat,
and in the case of lizardmen .... get eaten.

Whoa, holy crap! N810! Haven't seen you in quite some time.

The question is how are we going about defining "lone model"? The handlers are obviously models considering not only can they die from missing fire, but they can make attacks in close combat. This would make a monster with handlers cease to be "lone." On the other hand, they are said to be ignored for "most" gaming purposes, are moved when units come within 1", etc. So is a monster with handlers a "lone model" or no?

a18no
30-09-2010, 16:15
well they do get to fight in combat,
and in the case of lizardmen .... get eaten.

Except that they don't actually "fight" into combat. They can hit the same models the monster can hit. They don't improve the width of the monster. So a 50mm monster like an hydra is not 90mm when in cose combat, it stay at 50mm but include 7WS4 S5 attacks and 6WS4S3 armor piercing attack.

N810
30-09-2010, 16:19
Whoa, holy crap! N810! Haven't seen you in quite some time.

Yea I have been lurking for a bit... :shifty:
also Warseer was blocked at work for quite a while... :mad:


Yea
maybe fight was the wrong word...
Attack is probaly more approiate.

SiNNiX
30-09-2010, 16:29
Warseer was blocked at work for quite a while... :mad:


You know your life's not too tough when this is one of your problems. Nice!

Kevlar
01-10-2010, 01:20
I don't know, they work sort of like a mount and that is still a lone model. War machines with crew are now lone models even though they fight in hand to hand. I say give them the lone model status.

TheDarkDaff
01-10-2010, 02:11
You can think of it like that.

But what about: any monster is a lone mondel? Can you find any "monster" that actually consist of more than one MODEL that count in the game? The rule specificly says that handler are never used for game purpose. Clear for me, don't try to find a loophole, play it like it look.

Problem in rule interpretation ALWAYS come when someone try to find an exception. You are doing it now, sorry.
Handlers NEVER count, never is never.

Happy to help you!

Your wrong. Look at the quote provided and you will find that it says to ignore the handlers in most cases. You can corrct me if i am wrong but "most" does not mean the same as "all" which you are claiming. Of course their could be othr RBRB quotes that back up your position but you haven't quoted any of them.

So just going by the original quote we ignore the handlers most of the time but in this case it might just be enough to mean that a Hydra (just an example of a monster with handlers) isn't a lone model. This is even somewhat baced up by the ommission of "Monster's and Handler's" from the short list of unit types that are lone models.

Synnister
01-10-2010, 02:47
With such a short list of what count as lone models, why didn't they include monsters and handlers? We keep seeing people wanting to ignore handlers for everything when the rules don't do that. GW really needs to redo the monsters and handlers rules. Too much confusion.

Damocles8
01-10-2010, 03:49
on a side note....where are the monsters and handler rules? I have both versions and couldn't find it the other day when we needed it....

AMWOOD co
01-10-2010, 04:11
The handlers 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.

The second half of the next paragraph also clarifies that they are moved about like counters rather than actual 'models' on the field.

As for unit type, if you look up the Hellcannon, you will notice that it is a monster. If you look up the Chaos Dwarf handlers, you will see that they have no unit type. Therefore, they don't count as anything in the same sence as the crew of a warmachine. You still use their Ld for tests and can use their attacks, but that's it. They won't even slow the Hellcannon down anymore if you want to charge.

Therefore, a monster and handler unit acts like whatever type the 'monster' is as if the handlers didn't exist (except where monster and handler explicitly says so, ie. being shot and making attacks).

sulla
01-10-2010, 08:14
If you look up the Chaos Dwarf handlers, you will see that they have no unit type. Therefore, they don't count as anything in the same sence as the crew of a warmachine. You still use their Ld for tests and can use their attacks, but that's it.
Why do they get to use their Ld? They are ignored for most purposes. You count the monster as the extent of the unit. This seems to forbid using them for stat tests. They are not parts of a multiple part model and they are not members of a unit (if the monster is the extent of the unit).

Chris_
01-10-2010, 08:46
It clearly states under Monster and Handlers, "..., treating the monster itself as the extent of the unit." This obviously makes him a "lone model".

NixonAsADaemonPrince
01-10-2010, 10:52
Thinking about it from a rules as intended point of view, I'd reckon that handlers only exist due to fluff, as it makes sense that some monsters would need goading into battle, and so the rules for monsters and handlers are just there to cover how the handlers supplement the monster. This is backed up as there is no specific unit type of "monster and handler".

So to me it would make sense that a monster and handler unit could pivot at any time as they would still be pretty manoeuvrable, but this isn't based on any rules, just what I generally feel is "right".

From a rules perspective, as the handlers can't actually move (the monsters just move and they are placed along side, and you simply change their position if they are getting in the way) and they don't have to keep a fixed formation, I'd say that the monsters moves as if they are a lone model.

This quote backs this up to an extent (though I definitely do admit that this is isn't the context to which it applies to): "In addition the handlers cannot be charged, attacked or otherwise affected separately from their monster-if they are found to be blocking movement or line of sight, the controlling player simply alters their position, just as you would for any other battlefield marker or counter.

a18no
01-10-2010, 15:20
Your wrong. Look at the quote provided and you will find that it says to ignore the handlers in most cases. You can corrct me if i am wrong but "most" does not mean the same as "all" which you are claiming. Of course their could be othr RBRB quotes that back up your position but you haven't quoted any of them.

So just going by the original quote we ignore the handlers most of the time but in this case it might just be enough to mean that a Hydra (just an example of a monster with handlers) isn't a lone model. This is even somewhat baced up by the ommission of "Monster's and Handler's" from the short list of unit types that are lone models.

You're absolutly right, in MOST case they are ignore:

Unit type: they are ignore, cause an hydra unit is a "monster" nothing else
Movement: it's not a "unit", it's not even a skirmisher formation, they are ignore, so move exactly like a "lone monster"
Attacks: for hydra, they made 6 attacks with their own profil, but can't by strike back. So are ignore for defense, but not for offense
Shooting: for hydra, always ignore, for any other monster and handler, one handler is dead for each 5+ you get (see distribution in the monster and handler part of the BRB)
Stats: for any characteristic test, they are consider if they have a better stats than the hydra (purple sun for exemple).

See, i've cover the "ignore most of the time".

Happy to help!

decker_cky
01-10-2010, 18:07
Purple sun is a template, so the handlers don't enter the equation. It hits the hydra itself (the handlers in no way are part of the model).

It's ambiguous to say the least whether handlers stats can be used outside of combat.

a18no
01-10-2010, 18:28
Purple sun is a template, so the handlers don't enter the equation. It hits the hydra itself (the handlers in no way are part of the model).

It's ambiguous to say the least whether handlers stats can be used outside of combat.

Handlers are "parts" of the monster, they just don't act by themself, always following what the monster is doing.

It's a multi part model, just like chariot or stegaddon. It's just that you are used to play them differently, you'll be fine in no time.

decker_cky
01-10-2010, 18:39
Find me any quote which implies the handlers are part of the monster model. Wound randomization and attacking from the monster's base don't mean the handlers are part of the monster.

a18no
01-10-2010, 18:58
Find me any quote which implies the handlers are part of the monster model. Wound randomization and attacking from the monster's base don't mean the handlers are part of the monster.

To you I will answer this:


The second half of the next paragraph also clarifies that they are moved about like counters rather than actual 'models' on the field.

As for unit type, if you look up the Hellcannon, you will notice that it is a monster. If you look up the Chaos Dwarf handlers, you will see that they have no unit type. Therefore, they don't count as anything in the same sence as the crew of a warmachine. You still use their Ld for tests and can use their attacks, but that's it. They won't even slow the Hellcannon down anymore if you want to charge.

Therefore, a monster and handler unit acts like whatever type the 'monster' is as if the handlers didn't exist (except where monster and handler explicitly says so, ie. being shot and making attacks).

decker_cky
01-10-2010, 19:34
Yup....but the important part is that those handlers aren't part of the hellcannon model. They're counters as described in the monster and handler rules...counters which are separate from the monster model.

SiNNiX
02-10-2010, 00:18
The handlers don't play a part at all in any rules except for the specific rules outlined in the Monsters and Handlers section. They're ignored for most rule purposes and only exist as models due to the monster looking incomplete without them.

AMWOOD co
02-10-2010, 06:16
I would say that handlers can still be used for Ld tests. The Hellcannon would be all but useless as artillery if this were not true (taking a test on Ld 4 rather than 9).

For other statistics, I would state that you should use the monster in question. The role of handlers for most beasts is to herd them into battle. The beast does the real work, they just get it there. Is there anything other than a Hellcannon where the Ld of the beast is lower than the handlers?

For that matter, what is the complete list of Monster and Handler creatures. I know that Salamanders and Razordons have the rule despite not being monsters (they're Warbeasts). Hydra's don't have the rule but rather have an approximation. What else is there?

Makrar
02-10-2010, 08:40
I asked about this rule in general at games day and complained that i found it poorly written and needing an faq. I spoke to matt ward and hes answer was "Ahh good question, i didnt think of that" and referred me to another staff member who was going to answer it (another Matt something). Anyways the other Matt went with that if your attacking the monster and handlers. you use the monsters stats as that is what your attacking and you then roll to see if the handlers die on a 5+ etc etc, for anything else other then attacks made on it you can use the best stat on the model.

Works out good for me as i can now Brass orb hydras all day long and my mate grumbles but he was with me at the time so :D

As for how other people should approach this? Wait for the faq. Its a poor rule. Its definatley a lone model though

Ethos
02-10-2010, 20:50
Except that they don't actually "fight" into combat. They can hit the same models the monster can hit. They don't improve the width of the monster. So a 50mm monster like an hydra is not 90mm when in cose combat, it stay at 50mm but include 7WS4 S5 attacks and 6WS4S3 armor piercing attack.

??

Have I missed something in the RBRB? (I don't have it in front of me, so don't hit me too hard if it's stated clearly that this is so).

SiNNiX
02-10-2010, 21:01
??

Have I missed something in the RBRB? (I don't have it in front of me, so don't hit me too hard if it's stated clearly that this is so).

They don't increase the width of the monster theoretically. It's still common practice to place the models up front and in combat alongside the Hydra, but if the Hydra is flanked or if Movement is restricted by the handlers in any way, they are moved so that they don't restrict Movement.

AMWOOD co
03-10-2010, 12:46
??

Have I missed something in the RBRB? (I don't have it in front of me, so don't hit me too hard if it's stated clearly that this is so).


In close comat, the handlers can direct their attacks against any enemy in base contact with their moster.

There, that wasn't too hard.

Ethos
04-10-2010, 03:16
So the Handlers won't widen the base of the Hydra when in combat? You can just keep them behind the Hydra? Or even, smudged onto the base of the Hydra itself?

SiNNiX
04-10-2010, 03:33
So the Handlers won't widen the base of the Hydra when in combat? You can just keep them behind the Hydra? Or even, smudged onto the base of the Hydra itself?

Sure, if you want to. It doesn't matter as they can't be affected by, much less affect, anything.

Croaker2
04-10-2010, 20:20
We were debating something similar the other day.

So the only time you can kill a handler is when you roll a 5 or 6 to randomize a wound when attacking the monster.

Since the Hydra has the special rule that you do not randomize to the handlers, (AB>BRB) does that make the handlers of the Hydra completely immune to killing, ever?

a18no
04-10-2010, 20:23
We were debating something similar the other day.

So the only time you can kill a handler is when you roll a 5 or 6 to randomize a wound when attacking the monster.

Since the Hydra has the special rule that you do not randomize to the handlers, (AB>BRB) does that make the handlers of the Hydra completely immune to killing, ever?

Yep

But see it like that: for normal monster, they got 2 wards on 5+ that the hydra don't have. After the second is missed, the monster loose Ld, on all missed he lose some attack at low strengh.

But the hydra don't have that. Everything is a matter of taste!

Lord Inquisitor
04-10-2010, 20:35
Allow me to distill this whole thread into one succinct question.

Are monsters and handlers considered a split profile unit?

This has come up before, I first encountered it when I hit a hellcannon with a purple sun, do I use the hellcannon's Initiative, or that of the handlers? There are two possible interpretations. One is that the monster & handlers is a split profile unit, like chariots. In which case you use the highest profile for any stat-based test. Alternatively, the monster is so important that it is simply considered a monster with benefits, so the monster's stats are used for any stat-based test, the handlers' stats cannot be used - except, presumably, for Ld tests.

I've given it some thought and I think most likely it should be considered a split profile unit like chariots and weak anecdotal evidence from Games Day posted earlier suggests that the designers intend for M&H units to be split profile units. That said, it's certainly far from clear and we could do with an FAQ on this!

decker_cky
04-10-2010, 20:47
There's a spell from lore of the wild that lets the hydra munch it's handlers too. That's pretty much the only way I know of to kill a hydra's handlers.

There is NO evidence for considering the hydra to have the handler's initiative from purple sun. Not a single word or passage from the monsters and handlers rules point that way.

Lord Inquisitor
04-10-2010, 21:14
The split profile unit definition and the fact that it is to all intents and purposes a multiprofile unit suggest that it is. I'm not saying it definitely is, but the rulebook is not clear either way.

a18no
04-10-2010, 21:49
The split profile unit definition and the fact that it is to all intents and purposes a multiprofile unit suggest that it is. I'm not saying it definitely is, but the rulebook is not clear either way.

I think you minsterpretate some rules.

Merge profils are a new thing for 8th that you need to be used to, here some exemple:

- Monster and handler is one
- Character on pegasus were 2 seperate things, but no longer are. immune to killing blow, best wound used, etc.
- Warmachine got crew that are not seperate models. Shooting against the warmachine, close against the crew.

They are different but same in some way: best charateristic for test, some got exception (warmachines auto miss for exemple), etc. But they follow a basic line that is the same.

You're going to far in your interpretation, and I really don't understand why... so can't really argue to explain more in detail to you. But I continue to try!

Hope that help.

SiNNiX
04-10-2010, 22:53
I still believe that they're ignored for all rules purposes except for the specific exceptions mentioned in the Monsters & Handlers section of the BRB. It's definitely way open to interpretation, though, so if I was playing a game against Lord Inquisitor, I'd let him do whatever he wanted.

Synnister
05-10-2010, 02:31
I can't see how there are anything other than multi-profile units. It seems that makes the most sense for them.

sulla
05-10-2010, 03:58
I can't see how there are anything other than multi-profile units. It seems that makes the most sense for them.It makes complete sense. It's just that it has no support in the rules. Hopefully in the next batch of FAQs...

Lord Inquisitor
05-10-2010, 04:47
Okay, forget split profile as a definition for a sec (sorry, that's what I get for posting when my rulebook isn't to hand). What we're talking about is M&H and characteristic tests.

What the characteristic test rules say is the following:

p10 "Where a model (or a unit) has more than one value for the same characteristic... a characteristic test is always taken against the highest of the values." (Nothing specifically about split profile units.)

Now, to Monsters and Handlers:

p. 73"The handlers aren't really a combat unit per se, so we ignore them for most gaming purposes..." Fantastically vague, huh? "... treating the monster itself as the extent of the unit." So the monster is it, at least for moving-it-around-the-table purposes.

However the handlers can be killed (indirectly), direct attacks, they have an initiative, strength, etc. Clearly the monster "unit" does have more than one value for characteristics. It's right there in the army books!

Do we ignore the handlers for characteristic test purposes and treat the monsters as the extent of the unit with regard to characteristics OR as clearly stated the monster "model" has the handler profile for attacks, etc, which means that the unit has more than one value. Which takes precidence? Neither is immediately obvious as cast-iron clear to me, either fluffwise or ruleswise.

Certainly one for a FAQ as it's an issue that crops up quite a bit with the new spell lores and the abundance of hydra and hellcannon we see these days. I've seen people play it both ways and not even have it occur to them that it wasn't the right way (usually depending on whether they go to the M&H rules for a resolution or to the characteristic test section first as each resolves the "what initiative value does a hellcannon use against a purple sun" question satisfactorily but in entirely diametrically opposed directions).

Synnister
05-10-2010, 05:22
p10 "Where a model (or a unit) has more than one value for the same characteristic... a characteristic test is always taken against the highest of the values." (Nothing specifically about split profile units.)


As I see, nothing in the M&H rule overrides this rule. I tend to follow the rules unless there is something that specifically overrides that rule. As far as people saying the handlers don't count as part of the unit and should be discounted, every M&H entry in the ABs specifically says what the unit consists of, namely the monster and a certain number of handlers. As the ABs override BRB, you have to assume the AB is correct and that the handlers are indeed part of the unit. If you accept that the unit consists of multiple models with varying stats you have to invoke the rule on pg 10 which is quoted above.

I personally don't believe this is how we're suppose to handle M&H's when the new books start to hit. I suspect they will be one complete profile for the monster and a partial profile consisting of WS, S, A, I for the handlers.

AMWOOD co
05-10-2010, 05:44
You should probably add Ld to that partial profile. The intention for the Hellcannon (the monster with the Monster and Handlers rule that is most often used) is that as long as the Chaos Dwarfs are still alive it will not Rampage as often. That's how its was during the Storm and in 7th with the Warriors of Chaos book. I don't see why they would expect it to pass only 1 in 6 times now rather than 5 in 6 while those Dwarfs are still there.

decker_cky
05-10-2010, 06:21
First, you're reading page 10 wrong. Where a model is taking a test, you use the best initiative for the model. Where a unit is taking a test, you use the best initiative for the unit.

Purple sun forces a test on a model, so the hydra is the only relevant thing. Nothing makes the handlers part of the hydra model.

The ambiguity for unit stats is a completely separate issue to this.

Souppilgrim
05-10-2010, 08:02
First, you're reading page 10 wrong. Where a model is taking a test, you use the best initiative for the model. Where a unit is taking a test, you use the best initiative for the unit.

Purple sun forces a test on a model, so the hydra is the only relevant thing. Nothing makes the handlers part of the hydra model.

The ambiguity for unit stats is a completely separate issue to this.

I'd have to agree. Even from a fluff/RAI point of view: When hit by the purple sun, the Hydra itself gets physically hit. IT is the one that really needs to survive, the handlers can't make the big mass of the hydra go away so that it's ultra light on it's feet. Using handlers LD makes sense, because they are the ones that trained it however.

sulla
05-10-2010, 11:02
I'd have to agree. Even from a fluff/RAI point of view: When hit by the purple sun, the Hydra itself gets physically hit. IT is the one that really needs to survive, the handlers can't make the big mass of the hydra go away so that it's ultra light on it's feet. Using handlers LD makes sense, because they are the ones that trained it however.

The same logic applies to ridden monsters and chariots though. No amount of razor-quick pulling on the reins of a stegadon or a bunch of cold ones should be able to dodge a template of doom, but that's just what the rules allow.

Lord Inquisitor
05-10-2010, 13:15
First, you're reading page 10 wrong. Where a model is taking a test, you use the best initiative for the model. Where a unit is taking a test, you use the best initiative for the unit.
I never said otherwise. However, it clearly states that the monster is the extent of the unit, so both apply. I don't see why this makes any difference - the handlers are part of the monster, both a unit and a model, in a similar way to the crew war machines, surely.


Purple sun forces a test on a model, so the hydra is the only relevant thing. Nothing makes the handlers part of the hydra model.
*scratches head*
Are you saying that they are separate models? This seems tenuous indeed.

a18no
05-10-2010, 16:06
I see the handlers exactly like a stegaddon, or a ridden monster. They follow exactly the same rules as a Lord on dragon. It's just that we are used to play them on different bases, modeled them on the back of the hydra, and you'll play it right!

decker_cky
05-10-2010, 18:03
I never said otherwise. However, it clearly states that the monster is the extent of the unit, so both apply. I don't see why this makes any difference - the handlers are part of the monster, both a unit and a model, in a similar way to the crew war machines, surely.


*scratches head*
Are you saying that they are separate models? This seems tenuous indeed.


There's two cases possible. Handlers are something separate (whether you call them tokens or models), or the handlers are nothing and the monster is the unit. Neither of these have the handlers as part of the hydra model.

Not tenuous. Considering the handlers part of the hydra model is adding words to the rule that just aren't there.

Lord Inquisitor
05-10-2010, 18:27
They're clearly not "nothing," the handlers have profiles and characteristics. The suggestion that the monster forms a unit consisting of the monster and several "nothings" is silly. The monster is the unit, I agree, but it is a "unit" with multiple profiles.

Aside from anything else, we surely can agree that the Monster can use the Handlers' Ld. If the monster is the unit and the handlers are neither part of the monster's split profiles nor models that are part of the unit, then a M&H cannot therefore use the handlers' Ld. Which is absurd.

Again, the line is "Where a model (or a unit) has more than one value for the same characteristic". The M&H certainly do, it's certainly a model/unit with more than one value for a given characteristic. Now YEAH you can argue that the monster rules specifically state that you treat the monster as the extent of the unit, but that's just not the only interpretation and leads to the Ld issue, above. Like I said, I'm not on one side or the other as definite, but the evidence points to being a multi-profile model.

decker_cky
05-10-2010, 21:26
You're adding stuff that isn't there. This comes down to one thing. The handlers are not part of the hydra's model. You can call them models, tokens or nothings, it doesn't matter. They're clearly not part of the hydra's model.

Purple sun forces a test on a model, not on a unit, so you use the highest value on the model. The hydra has only one value. The handlers are irrelevant, much like a beastlord standing in a unit of gors would be.

If the test said the unit takes an initiative test, you might have a case (it's still ambiguous, but that has nothing to do with this discussion). That's comparable to the leadership tests on the hellcannon.

You're reading the "Where a model (or a unit) has more than one value for the same characteristic" passage wrong. Model is for model test and unit is for unit tests. One or the other.

Since the hydra itself is a model without multiple parts, it's initiative 2.

Lord Inquisitor
05-10-2010, 22:06
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy this. Either the monster counts as a multi-profile model, or it counts as simply a monster with additional attacks. There is NOTHING in the rules that suggests that it is a monster MODEL in a UNIT of spectral handlers. The exact rule is that we are "treating the monster as the extent of the unit." There is no "unit" of handlers the monster is attached to. The monster IS the unit and the unit IS the monster. It says it right there!

There are two possibilities. Either the monster is treated as the extent of the unit. So the monster is the unit, just with additional rules for attacking, etc. from the handler "markers." In which case you would have to use the monster's characteristics but cannot use the handlers' Ld for Ld tests. This, I feel, is clearly not intended.

The second is that it is a model/unit with more than one profile, in which case it follows the normal rules for multiple characteristics, i.e. it uses the best one. Which solves the Ld issue, but means the monster can use the handlers' characteristics for tests. Which isn't that unreasonable as it is the same for ridden monsters and chariots.

I think I'm finally getting what you're at. What you are suggesting is that a monster model is in a unit consisting of itself, and that there is some distinction between Monster (model) and Monster (unit). If the rules call for the model to take a test it is on the monster's stats, and if the unit is called upon to make a test, then you use the highest. I get where you're coming from but I contend that this is an incorrect reading of the rules - I can't see anything that suggests a dichotomy in the M&H rules ... which state that the monster is the extent of the unit. There is no "monster model" and "M&H unit." The monster IS the unit. Just as a lone model is both a model and a unit, a M&H monster is both a model and a unit. If the M&H monster is the extent of the unit, then either it is a multi-profile unit for Ld test and all other characteristic tests or it just uses the Monster's stats as the Monster is the extent of the unit.

Look, even if you don't agree - give me at least that you can see my argument. I think I get your argument (finally). I don't agree, but it's a way of looking at it. If you accept that my reasoning is at least reasonable and a way of reading it (even if you don't agree that its right way of reading it, as you keep saying), then we can get back to the original point, which is: we genuinely need an FAQ on this!

decker_cky
05-10-2010, 22:13
If the monster is the extent of the unit, then the handlers are nothing. If you consider that sentence key, then aside from the specified exceptions, you flat out ignore the existence of the handlers. No statline, no nothing. That means no leadership tests on their values too.

If you take a looser look at the rules to allow for the leadership sharing, the handlers still aren't a part of the model.

a18no
05-10-2010, 22:29
If the monster is the extent of the unit, then the handlers are nothing. If you consider that sentence key, then aside from the specified exceptions, you flat out ignore the existence of the handlers. No statline, no nothing. That means no leadership tests on their values too.

If you take a looser look at the rules to allow for the leadership sharing, the handlers still aren't a part of the model.

So, what's your interpretation of stegaddon?? Purple sun cast on it will make the test on witch charateristic?

Lord Inquisitor
05-10-2010, 22:32
We're going round in circles. If you take a looser look at the split profile units, the M&H fits right in as a model/unit with more than one characteristic. It's rather similar to a war machine or chariot in that regard, the fact that it doesn't actually say the words "split profile unit" is the only reason we're debating this. War machines in particular are very similar as they went from gun + handlers to just gun, while the M&H went to just monster.

I get what you're saying, I really do, but as I've said from the beginning there are at least two ways of looking at this. I agree, if you take that logic to its end, you reach the absurd conclusion that you can't use the handlers' Ld, which is clearly wrong. So the crux is whether the monster is considered the model for characteristic tests and we just fudge that Ld is part of the handler "unit" (which is entirely reasonable but a bit of a fudge in rules terms), or that it's a split profile model (which it is to all intents and purposes but it just doesn't quite spell it out). Either solves the Ld problem and I have seen players play it both ways without realising there was ever another way. I have my preference but... we need an FAQ.

Kevlar
05-10-2010, 22:36
So, what's your interpretation of stegaddon?? Purple sun cast on it will make the test on witch charateristic?

Ridden monsters have a much clearer explanation than the couple of them that have handlers. The same rules do not apply.

decker_cky
05-10-2010, 23:17
We're going round in circles. If you take a looser look at the split profile units, the M&H fits right in as a model/unit with more than one characteristic. It's rather similar to a war machine or chariot in that regard, the fact that it doesn't actually say the words "split profile unit" is the only reason we're debating this. War machines in particular are very similar as they went from gun + handlers to just gun, while the M&H went to just monster.

I get what you're saying, I really do, but as I've said from the beginning there are at least two ways of looking at this. I agree, if you take that logic to its end, you reach the absurd conclusion that you can't use the handlers' Ld, which is clearly wrong. So the crux is whether the monster is considered the model for characteristic tests and we just fudge that Ld is part of the handler "unit" (which is entirely reasonable but a bit of a fudge in rules terms), or that it's a split profile model (which it is to all intents and purposes but it just doesn't quite spell it out). Either solves the Ld problem and I have seen players play it both ways without realising there was ever another way. I have my preference but... we need an FAQ.

Two problems:

1.) You assume leadership being unusable is absurd. It's not that absurd.

2.) You made a strange middle ground with your interpretation.

Either:

a) The monster is the extent of the unit. Ignore the handlers completely except for:
-randomization of wounds
-attacks from base of the monster

OR

b) The extent of the unit and most gaming purposes stuff gets fudged to allow for stuff like leadership tests since the wording isn't really air tight.

Neither of those solutions has anything which makes the handlers part of the unit. To be honest...situation a) has a stronger support in the rules RAW, but I understand that makes hellcannon owners cry. The alternative has tokens with stats that aren't part of the hellcannon as part of the unit for certain purposes, not part of the model.

Synnister
05-10-2010, 23:52
Two problems:

1.) You assume leadership being unusable is absurd. It's not that absurd.

2.) You made a strange middle ground with your interpretation.

Either:

a) The monster is the extent of the unit. Ignore the handlers completely except for:
-randomization of wounds
-attacks from base of the monster

OR

b) The extent of the unit and most gaming purposes stuff gets fudged to allow for stuff like leadership tests since the wording isn't really air tight.

Neither of those solutions has anything which makes the handlers part of the unit. To be honest...situation a) has a stronger support in the rules RAW, but I understand that makes hellcannon owners cry. The alternative has tokens with stats that aren't part of the hellcannon as part of the unit for certain purposes, not part of the model.

You cannot ignore handlers since they are called out in the army books. It doesn't matter one bit what the M&H rule states in the BRB since the AB overrides the BRB. The AB says it is a unit with multiple profiles with multiple models and nothing in the BRB can override that. You are trying to apply a rule that is clearly written for future AB to the current AB and it doesn't work. You need to let go of the M&H rule till they come out with ABs and monsters that make the rule make sense.

Kevlar
06-10-2010, 00:22
You cannot ignore handlers since they are called out in the army books. It doesn't matter one bit what the M&H rule states in the BRB since the AB overrides the BRB. The AB says it is a unit with multiple profiles with multiple models and nothing in the BRB can override that. You are trying to apply a rule that is clearly written for future AB to the current AB and it doesn't work. You need to let go of the M&H rule till they come out with ABs and monsters that make the rule make sense.

In this case the hydra is given troop type monster, not unique, so the hydra follows the monster rules in the BRB, not the armybook rules.

a18no
06-10-2010, 15:29
But why people can't understand that the hydra is a monster AND a unit with crew??? Both rules won't beat each other:

- Move like a monster
- Multiple profil
- Handlers can't be hit (in some case for other monsters)

Where's the problem with that? How can't you play it like that...

Shas'O Vash
06-10-2010, 16:01
I think the passage about the monster being the extent of the unit and the other passage about the handlers being ignored for most purposes throws treating them like a unit out the door while at the same time it is obviously not a single model.