PDA

View Full Version : Monster and Handlers - Leadership, Characteristics, etc



oldschoolmonk
25-10-2010, 15:52
When you have a monster and handlers, such as a hydra or hell cannon, when do you use the actual handlers in the game? From the BRB it appears these handlers have 0 impact on the game, except for addition attacks in close combat using the handler's profile.

1) Characteristic tests, such as initiative for marshes or pit of shades are done by the monster alone?
2) Do you ignore the handlers bases for templates and determining who may strike in close combat?
3) Does the monster use it's own leadership for panic and all leadership tests?

Please let me know what you read the book as, and how you play it. So far we have been playing with these rules, and it definitely changes the game. The Hydra has to be very careful to stay in range of the general or far enough on a flank that it won't be taking leadership tests. As well, the Hell Cannon has fallen into disuse because it doesn't get to fire much once the general marches forward.

Lex
25-10-2010, 16:03
The way the rules have been written has led to much debate. Unfortunately, by RAW I don't think there's a clear answer. The rules say ignore for "most" purposes and then gives examples of how to deal with certain situations. But, there is no language that says this list is exhaustive of all situations where the handlers come into play. So most people are having a discussion on what "most" means. I think really we're left with a RAI and I really don't think GW will rule it so that the Hellcannon must either be babysat by the general or test on a LD 4. That would also mean Hydras test on I 5. But who knows? I play it that the handlers provide stats for all purposes, but their physical presence is ignored.

Lord Inquisitor
25-10-2010, 16:09
The short answer is: we don't know and we need a FAQ on this.

There's two ways to read the rules, it depends on whether it is a split profile unit or just counts as a monster with bonus attacks.

I think we can all agree that a M&H unit can use the highest Ld value in the "unit" including the handlers. As far as other characteristic tests go, the jury's out.

Personally, I think you just use the highest characteristic for any characteristic test and this has the strongest support from the rules.

Synnister
25-10-2010, 19:04
The rules for M&H are a mess. I believe that in the next round of Army books we will see more profiles and explanation. Currently, we have older generation units trying to function under a new edition that has essentially redefined the unit. Best course of action is to discuss with your opponent prior to the game.

theunwantedbeing
25-10-2010, 19:20
Tests for the unit, pick the highest available.
Tests for specific parts, that parts characteristic is tested.

Simple.

Most of the time you'll only ever test for the monster as you'll be unable to target the handlers at all with anything.

An FAQ will solve it when GW bother's to get around to including it as a question.

WizzyWarlock
25-10-2010, 19:30
1) Characteristic tests, such as initiative for marshes or pit of shades are done by the monster alone?
2) Do you ignore the handlers bases for templates and determining who may strike in close combat?
3) Does the monster use it's own leadership for panic and all leadership tests?
1) As stated under Characteristic tests, "Where a model (or unit) has more than one value for the same characteristic, as is the case with cavalry for example, a characteristic test is always taken against the highest of the values.".

2) The handlers can't be targeted seperately and don't even block line of sight, so yes, ignore handlers for templates and hit the monster directly. However, when this happens as described under templates, "Some models.. have several different locations that can normally be hit seperately - in these cases a template is assumed to hit all the locations on the model.". So when the template hits, it strikes both the monster AND all the handlers.

3) When taking a panic or leadership test you use the highest leadership in the unit. As Monster & Handlers are described as a unit, ".. treating the monster itself as the extent of the unit.", then it uses the handlers Leadership - if highest of course.

decker_cky
25-10-2010, 19:42
I'm going under the assumption handlers exist for leadership tests, etc..

1.) Unit tests can use handler leadership. Model tests cannot. Handlers are not part of the monster model.

2.) Template hits on handlers are ignored. Template hits on the monster cause a single hit. Once again - handlers are not part of the monster model.

3.) 100% ambiguous, but the general way to play is to allow handler leadership.

a18no
25-10-2010, 20:10
I'm going under the assumption handlers exist for leadership tests, etc..

1.) Unit tests can use handler leadership. Model tests cannot. Handlers are not part of the monster model.

2.) Template hits on handlers are ignored. Template hits on the monster cause a single hit. Once again - handlers are not part of the monster model.

3.) 100% ambiguous, but the general way to play is to allow handler leadership.

I play it exactly like that. The handlers got no "physical" presence, but are there for any other purpose.

So can't be snipped, can't be charged, can't be hit by template, etc.

geldedgoat
26-10-2010, 03:30
1) Characteristic tests, such as initiative for marshes or pit of shades are done by the monster alone?
2) Do you ignore the handlers bases for templates and determining who may strike in close combat?
3) Does the monster use it's own leadership for panic and all leadership tests?


I'm basing all my answers on the following two passages:


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.


[T]he handlers cannot be charged, attacked or otherwise affected separately from their monster [...]

These two quotes suggest (but don't explicitly state) that the unit is basically equivalent to a split-profile model, as the monster is 'the extent of the unit' and the handlers cannot be 'affected separately from the monster.'

So to answer your questions...
1) The highest characteristic would be used.
2) The handlers would be completely ignored.
3) The highest leadership would be used.

decker_cky
26-10-2010, 03:34
These two quotes suggest (but don't explicitly state) that the unit is basically equivalent to a split-profile model, as the monster is 'the extent of the unit' and the handlers cannot be 'affected separately from the monster.'

I disagree vehemently. A split profile is a single model, not a unit with some ignored elements. There is no assumption to say they're not the same model. There is a huge assumption needed to say they're the same model.

Synnister
26-10-2010, 03:48
Whether you disagree or not it doesn't change the rule stating that where a unit has multiple values for the same characteristic you use the higher one. Last time I checked handlers were still part of the Unit in the army books. And as we all know the AB trumps the BRB. Therefore regardless of what the BRB says about M&H, the handlers are still members of the unit with a different value for some of the same characteristics therefore you have to use the highest one in the unit.

H33D
26-10-2010, 03:55
So the handlers are much like war machine crew, eh?

geldedgoat
26-10-2010, 04:36
I disagree vehemently. A split profile is a single model, not a unit with some ignored elements. There is no assumption to say they're not the same model. There is a huge assumption needed to say they're the same model.

:confused: It explicitly says that the monster is the unit, not the monster and any additional handler models. The only bit that adds any ambiguity is 'for most gaming purposes,' in which the 'most' goes entirely unexplained.

decker_cky
26-10-2010, 06:47
The model is the monster. The handlers are part of the unit. Whether they count for things or not doesn't make them a part of the model.

WizzyWarlock
26-10-2010, 08:09
Personally, I would base it on each instance that they're making characteristic rolls for. If its something that's affecting the whole unit then do each one seperately, similar to template rules.

a18no
26-10-2010, 14:08
So the handlers are much like war machine crew, eh?

Exactly, but since the 7th edition way to play was different, many people are arguing because they can't play differently.

The difference between warmachines and handlers:

- In close combat as for shooting, you are striking the monster, not the handler
- They don't auto-missed characteristic tests
- You remove handlers on a roll of 5+ when an unsaved wounds is taken, not for each wounds.

Good games!

Lord Inquisitor
26-10-2010, 14:18
The model is the monster. The handlers are part of the unit. Whether they count for things or not doesn't make them a part of the model.

It also specifically says that the monster is treated as the extent of the unit. Plus you're defining the unit as a model and several "markers," which doesn't have support in the rules.

Now treating the monster as the extent of the unit could support testing on the monster's characteristics assuming it means ignore the handlers for most purposes including characteristic tests but the vague wording doesn't help. The vague wording of characteristic tests doesn't help either.

Ultimately there's two ways of looking at this and we've done the 8-page thread already and there's simply no definitive answer. Personally I feel that it's meant to be a split profile unit with additional rules and the idea of a unit of models and markers doesn't sit well with me. That said I acknowledge the contrary position as a valid interpretation. I've seen people play it both ways without even realising the issue so it's a good idea to address this before the game if you have M&H units.

a18no
26-10-2010, 14:20
It also specifically says that the monster is treated as the extent of the unit. Plus you're defining the unit as a model and several "markers," which doesn't have support in the rules.


The monster is the "extend" of the unit. But not the "unit". Behing an extend of something is not behing the things alone. It's how I understand it.

But since we don't have a proper FAQ: 4+ is your friend!

decker_cky
26-10-2010, 15:50
The monster is the extent of the unit would imply you put a fence around the monster and ignore the handlers. Everything beyond the monster itself is not the unit.

Pushing that line is more support for ignoring the handlers altogether (eg, no leadership). It is not an argument for considering the handlers a part of the monster. I confidently say that RAW, there should be no leadership sharing, but in game I'd never push it as I feel the intent is otherwise. But tests on the model itself ignore handlers for sure.

Lord Inquisitor
26-10-2010, 17:14
The monster is the extent of the unit would imply you put a fence around the monster and ignore the handlers. Everything beyond the monster itself is not the unit.
Well... yeah, and I'd accept this as one of the possible interpretations. But then again, the net effect is that the monster/unit has two profiles, and we get back to the clause about when a model/unit has more than one value for a characteristic. And I think we can all agree that the handlers' Ld should be used.

It looks, smells and acts like a split profile unit. I don't see using your logic either way without getting into dodgy ground of classing the handlers as a "non-model unit" or at the other end of "can't use the handlers' Ld" at the other.

Treating the Monster as the extent of a unit with more than one profile allows for the simplest and most parsimonious solution that still adheres to RAW.

a18no
26-10-2010, 17:31
Another way to see it:

We can see monster and handler as a ridden monster. Anything that force a characteristic test on both the rider and the monster will be on the monster's stats. anything that affect the "model" or the "unit" will use the best value.

A canon template like the spell pendulum will normally hit both the rider and the monster (in case of a dragon), so will hit with the monster's initiative.

But somehting that force one test for all the model (pit??) will use the best value among both.

decker_cky
26-10-2010, 19:05
First off...I'm flat out conceding that handlers can affect tests for the unit. Not worth arguing otherwise. Acknowledging that they exist in some manner is fine. Makes no difference.

And the model "(or unit) having different characteristics" line means a model taking a test uses it's best stat and a unit taking a test uses it's best stat. It's the stupid rule everyone loves to argue, but that at best is ambiguous when you ignore that the rule itself implies a difference between unit and model tests. If you want to argue that, go elsewhere since you're just muddling the issue.

So onto monsters and handlers. We're looking for whether a handler is part of the model and the 'extent of the unit' line is used to consider them one and the same. Let's look back at what that really says:


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.

Why are we treating the monster as the extent of the unit? Because we're ignoring the handlers for that gaming purpose. So let's look at what would happen if they weren't ignored.

The handlers themselves would test on their own stat if hit, and the monster would test on it's own stat. Ignoring the handlers has no effect on how the monster takes the test. They're ignored, and the monster tests on it's own initiative for purple sun/pit of shades.

H33D
26-10-2010, 19:14
You can't say handlers have 0 impact on the game:

-When a monster takes any unsaved wound, a handler dies instead on a roll of 5+.
-When all handlers are gone the monster takes a Monster Reaction test just like a ridden monster that loses its rider.
-Handlers can attack in close combat.
-Handlers cannot shoot, cast spells, etc.
-Handlers cannot be charged, shot at, attacked, or affected at all separately from their monster.
-If Handlers do get in the way for whatever reason such as line of sight, simply move them.
-If a monster dies so do all of the handlers.
-If a unit that consists of a Monster and Handlers has to take a Leadership test they take it at the highest LD available whether this is the monster's LD or the handler's LD.
-For all other characteristic tests, follow the same procedure and determine the highest value for that characteristic in the unit, including the handler's characteristics, and test for that. (Page 10)

"Where a model (or a unit) has more than one value for the same characteristic, as is the case with cavalry, for example, a characteristic test is always taken against the highest of the values."

A Hydra and its Beastmasters, for example, have two different initiative values. A Hydra is I2 and Beastmasters are I5. If the Purple Sun hit the unit it would only actually hit the Hydra as handlers cannot be affected or attacked in any way separately from the monster. The Hydra would then test on I5 as that is the highest value in the unit.

It is slightly complicated I will admit, though no more than the war machine rules (which are very similar). The rules ARE there however.

decker_cky
26-10-2010, 19:23
"Where a model (or a unit) has more than one value for the same characteristic, as is the case with cavalry, for example, a characteristic test is always taken against the highest of the values."

Take it to another thread if you feel like debating it, but this is the rule where you are incorrect. Without that line interpreted as the highest value in the unit for a test on a model, the hydra tests on I2. It parses correctly only with models taking a test on a model and units only taking a test on a unit. Go see how many people are letting dwarfs test for purple sun on a lord's I4.

Lord Inquisitor
26-10-2010, 20:11
Agreed on the parsing but it's muddy in the case of a hydra, where the model is the extent of the unit, but the unit has more than one profile. So does that follow that if the model is the extent of the unit, the model has more than one statline?

Ultimately the whole problem boils down to whether a M&H unit is a split profile model or a monster with benefits. Is there really a difference between the monster model (consisting of only the monster) and the monster unit (consisting of monster and several handler "counters")?

Hopefully a FAQ will sort this out. I could be happy either way - it makes sense that a monster is so big it uses its own characteristics (but what about Ld?) but on the other hand a ridden monster, chariot or war machine uses the crew/rider's initiative so it doesn't make any less sense that the handlers could prod their monster out the way of a purple sun and really the M&H look like a split profile unit.

H33D
26-10-2010, 21:24
yeah purple sun was a bad example but for 'unit' tests hydra would be I5. I don't believe you treat the unit like it is cavalry as it isnt one model but many models in a unit just like characters in a unit. You would still test on the hydra's I if it was specifically targeting the Hydra. However if the unit had to take a Strength test you would use the highest value available (as for any characteristic test targeting a unit on the whole). After wounds go through on a 5+ it hits a handler.

Palatine Katinka
27-10-2010, 00:39
When discussing the removal of handlers on a 5+ after a wound is suffered the Hydra is a bad example as it's special rules ignore that and all wounds go on the Hydra. This makes the handler models even more irrelevant since they are not removed until the Hydra is, measurements are never made to them, they can't be attacked and what they can attack is determined by what the hydra is in contact with. I can't think of a reason why it would make any difference if I glued them to the Hydra's base instead of separate ones.

H33D
27-10-2010, 04:32
It just says they are resolved against the Hydra. The BRB says if a monster takes a wound on a 5+ remove a handler instead. Not to resolve attacks against handlers on a 5+.

geldedgoat
27-10-2010, 08:58
The model is the monster. The handlers are part of the unit. Whether they count for things or not doesn't make them a part of the model.

I just don't see what support you have for being so sure of your position. The BRB is so vague on this special rule that either interpretation seems equally valid.

decker_cky
27-10-2010, 14:49
I just don't see what support you have for being so sure of your position. The BRB is so vague on this special rule that either interpretation seems equally valid.

Because nothing says they're part of the model. Without the handlers being ignored, the initiative test on the hydra is 2. The rules in black and white say that they're ignored on the key sentence which treats the monster as the extent of the unit, so why should they add additional effects by being ignored?

"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. "

I'm sure because the rules are clear.

Synnister
27-10-2010, 15:37
Doesnt the AB override the BRB? So, when the BRB says the unit is just the monster and the AB says the unit is the monster and handlers, how do you justify following the BRB? The BRB says that unless expressly stated the AB always trumps the BRB, why do you refuse to follow this rule in this instance?

Palatine Katinka
27-10-2010, 15:46
It just says they are resolved against the Hydra. The BRB says if a monster takes a wound on a 5+ remove a handler instead. Not to resolve attacks against handlers on a 5+.

I'm assuming this is in response to my post. So...

From the Dark Elf FAQ, Update section:

"Wounds that would normally be randomised between the War Hydra and its handlers are instead all applied against the War Hydra."

I can't think of a situation in which the handlers of the Hydra get removed other than by it dying. They cannot be targetted separately and and wounds are never randomly assigned to them.

Lord Inquisitor
27-10-2010, 16:02
Because nothing says they're part of the model.
The handlers are part of the unit. The monster is treated as the extent of the unit. Ergo the handlers are treated as part of the extent of the unit for most purposes, so they must be part of the monster. QED. :D


I'm sure because the rules are clear.

The rules are clear as mud, that's evident from the number of pages of discussion and the level of confusion. Ignoring the counter-arguments doesn't make it any more clear cut.

decker_cky
27-10-2010, 16:56
I can't think of a situation in which the handlers of the Hydra get removed other than by it dying. They cannot be targetted separately and and wounds are never randomly assigned to them.

Lore of the wild has a spell which would make the hydra cause 7 hits on the handlers explicitly. That would remove them if anyone took lore of wild....ever. :P


The handlers are part of the unit. The monster is treated as the extent of the unit. Ergo the handlers are treated as part of the extent of the unit for most purposes, so they must be part of the monster. QED. :D

The monster is treated as the extent because the handlers are ignored.

Handlers are ignored therefore the monster is treated as the extent of the unit therefore the handlers are part of the monster model. That's what you're arguing, and it requires the handlers not to be ignored to be true. See the problem in the logic?

Lord Inquisitor
27-10-2010, 17:42
The monster is treated as the extent because the handlers are ignored.

Handlers are ignored therefore the monster is treated as the extent of the unit therefore the handlers are part of the monster model. That's what you're arguing, and it requires the handlers not to be ignored to be true. See the problem in the logic?

No! There is no problem with the logic! Um... Look at this stripey unicorn (http://greywolf.critter.net/images/wow/gallery/2006-07-06-unicorn-zhevra.jpg)and I'll be right back...

a18no
27-10-2010, 19:00
Handlers are ignore for most gaming purpose. Most is not always. So any interpretation is perfectly legal.

I play to take the best value when characteristic test are taken (ld, S, T, I, etc.)
I ignore them for line of sight, spells, hit, charge, etc.
They can attack like if they were ON the hydra (no base on the side of the hydra)

If you face me in a game, and you don't like that way to play, be prepare to resolve it on 4+.

Simple as that, nothing more to say.

Good games!

H33D
27-10-2010, 20:02
When a wound hits a Hydra a handler is removed on a 5+ as per the main rulebook. The Dark Elf rulebook and the Dark Elf FAQ do not say that this DOESN'T happen. Until something says you ignore this rule, handlers die on a 5+.

If Handlers are not part of the unit then you wouldn't be able to use their stats for any test.

Monsters/handlers do not have a split profile. Just like a war machine, the handlers/crew do nothing (except count wounds for war machines) except they to provide stats for tests against the unit. If something hits the Hydra itself and you try to use the Handlers stats you are really rules lawyering, just like pit of shades drops a war machine without a test as the machine has 0 Initiative. For unit tests there is nothing preventing you from using the Handlers Initiative or other stats as they are part of the unit, they just cannot be attacked or effected apart from the Hydra, but I don't know of any Initiative tests that are taken one 1 die for the entire unit.

Lord Inquisitor
27-10-2010, 20:15
Monsters/handlers do not have a split profile. Just like a war machine, the handlers/crew do nothing (except count wounds for war machines) except they to provide stats for tests against the unit. If something hits the Hydra itself and you try to use the Handlers stats you are really rules lawyering, just like pit of shades drops a war machine without a test as the machine has 0 Initiative.
Wait, wait, wait. You're muddling things together here, although you are right about some things for the wrong reasons.

War machines are a split profile unit. That means that any characteristic tests for the war machine model do use the highest value. For a Toughness test, for example, you use the highest Toughness value (which will typically be the machine's). The only reason the pit of shades does drop a war machine automatically is not because the machine has an initiative of 0 - you'd be allowed to use the crew's initiative - but because the war machine rules specifically say that you fail all characteristic tests apart from Ld and T tests.

If the Monster/handlers are actually like a war machine and a split profile unit then absolutely yes you can use their characteristics for tests. But that's not clear whether they are meant to be a split profile or not.

As far as rules-lawyering, I think that's unfair. This is a matter of honest confusion in the rules. Personally I don't use M&H units so it'd suit me if they tested on the monster's stats.

Palatine Katinka
27-10-2010, 22:54
When a wound hits a Hydra a handler is removed on a 5+ as per the main rulebook. The Dark Elf rulebook and the Dark Elf FAQ do not say that this DOESN'T happen. Until something says you ignore this rule, handlers die on a 5+.

Did you read the quote I took from the Dark Elf FAQ?


"Wounds that would normally be randomised between the War Hydra and its handlers are instead all applied against the War Hydra."

Meanwhile, the main rulebook says...


"When the monster suffers an unsaved wound, roll a D6. On a roll of 1-4 the monster suffers the wound as normal, but on a roll of 5-6 a handler model is removed instead."

To me that sounds like a wound being randomised between the Hydra and the Beastmasters which the FAQ says to just apply to the Hydra instead.

decker_cky
28-10-2010, 00:04
Handlers are ignore for most gaming purpose. Most is not always. So any interpretation is perfectly legal.

This is the one issue that the word 'most' doesn't matter to. If you ignore them, they're ignored so don't use their stats. If you don't ignore them, they're separate models.

If you faced me and forced it to a 4+, you'd have to roll 4+ to use the handler's leadership.

H33D
28-10-2010, 00:28
Did you read the quote I took from the Dark Elf FAQ?



Meanwhile, the main rulebook says...



To me that sounds like a wound being randomised between the Hydra and the Beastmasters which the FAQ says to just apply to the Hydra instead.

Yeah instead of randomizing between Hydra and Beastmasters everything hits the Hydra (8th Edition Dark Elf FAQ).

Then all of those hits are rolled against the hydra to see whether they are successful. Those successful hits are rolled again too see if they wound (normal procedure in BRB).

Then successful wounds are transferred to the Beastmasters on a 5+. (BRB FAQ).

Palatine Katinka
28-10-2010, 00:42
I think you must be miss reading the Dark Elf Update. On page 2 under the heading "Page 58 – War Hydra, Special Rules" it does not say that everything hits the Hydra. It makes no mention of hits at all. It says Wounds are not randomised between the Hydra and the Beastmasters.

geldedgoat
28-10-2010, 01:01
If you don't ignore them, they're separate models.

The monster is still the extent of the unit*, so it's entirely possible to not ignore them for some game purposes (in this case leadership tests) but still have them not count as fully-fledged 'models' (in the same manner as warmachine crew).

*This means the monster model is the unit, and, conversely, the unit is the monster model. Why then should we not treat the monster and handlers as a single split-profile model?

sulla
28-10-2010, 06:15
*This means the monster model is the unit, and, conversely, the unit is the monster model. Why then should we not treat the monster and handlers as a single split-profile model?...because if we were allowed to treat them as a split profile model, there would be no issues, but GW likes to be difficult?

a18no
28-10-2010, 13:21
This is the one issue that the word 'most' doesn't matter to. If you ignore them, they're ignored so don't use their stats. If you don't ignore them, they're separate models.

If you faced me and forced it to a 4+, you'd have to roll 4+ to use the handler's leadership.

I'll ignore them in "most" case, for line of sight and charging purpose, or for unit wide in combat, but not for characteristic test.

So i'm following the rule. You are ignore them for ALL gaming purpose, so actually you are more wrong than I am! :p

H33D
28-10-2010, 17:30
I think you must be miss reading the Dark Elf Update. On page 2 under the heading "Page 58 War Hydra, Special Rules" it does not say that everything hits the Hydra. It makes no mention of hits at all. It says Wounds are not randomised between the Hydra and the Beastmasters.

I apologize. I was misreading the FAQ and missed the part about 'wounds' and just read that everything is allocated to the Hydra. I thought that everything hit the hydra and didn't randomly hit the beastmasters and then on a 5+ wounded a beastmaster, as the two rules seemed to go hand in hand.

Thanks for clearing this up!

AMWOOD co
28-10-2010, 18:35
...because if we were allowed to treat them as a split profile model, there would be no issues, but GW likes to be difficult?

You get the feeling GW loves leaving littles issues like this open to give us all something to talk/bicker about? They must be loving this.

Hashulaman
29-10-2010, 09:04
As far as I think, noone has discussed movement. Do you use the monsters movement or the Handlers? There are mosnters that move faster than their Handlers (I do beleive the Hellcannon does, it has Dwarfs as handlers and just about anything moves more than a Dwarf)

Lord Inquisitor
29-10-2010, 17:17
That's an excellent point. "If, for whatever reason, there is more than one Move characteristic in the unit, then the entire unit is treated as having the same Move value as the slowest model." p13.

I'm not sure this resolves things, but I think we have three possible rules interpretations.

1) Monster & Handlers are a split profile unit. All characteristic tests are on the best characteristic and movement is at the highest value (as it's a single model).

2) Monsters & Handlers are a special type of unit, that consists of a Monsters and several nebulous handler components. Handlers count as part of the unit but not the Monster. SO Monsters have to test on their own characteristics unless the characteristic test specifies highest in the unit (such as Ld tests). Movement is at the lowest value.

3) Handlers are entirely ignored. ALL characteristic tests are on the Monster's stats, including Ld, and movement is on the Monster's M.

Do these seem the reasonable as the three main possible interpretations?

Makrar
30-10-2010, 09:13
That's an excellent point. "If, for whatever reason, there is more than one Move characteristic in the unit, then the entire unit is treated as having the same Move value as the slowest model." p13.

I'm not sure this resolves things, but I think we have three possible rules interpretations.

1) Monster & Handlers are a split profile unit. All characteristic tests are on the best characteristic and movement is at the highest value (as it's a single model).

2) Monsters & Handlers are a special type of unit, that consists of a Monsters and several nebulous handler components. Handlers count as part of the unit but not the Monster. SO Monsters have to test on their own characteristics unless the characteristic test specifies highest in the unit (such as Ld tests). Movement is at the lowest value.

3) Handlers are entirely ignored. ALL characteristic tests are on the Monster's stats, including Ld, and movement is on the Monster's M.

Do these seem the reasonable as the three main possible interpretations?


Im in number 2's camp here. except that movement of the handlers is ignored.

I play it that if you attack a monster with handlers then you resolve it against the monsters stats as that is what your attacking but otherwise its a unit when making leadership tests and so forth.

I know this fudges the rules a bit but at i asked about this on gamesday and this was the intent of the rule as such. But its just poorly written and not playtested much

sulla
30-10-2010, 18:58
But its just poorly written and not playtested muchIf you were trying to surprise anyone on this site, I think you failed miserably. :D:D:D