PDA

View Full Version : Dark Elves Hydra + Handlers - Storm of Magic



b4z
17-07-2011, 00:47
Only a single model is allowed to attack a Wizard on top of a Fulcrum.

When a Dark Elves Hydra [not a Storm of Magic Scroll of Binding Hydra] attacks a Wizard on top of a Fulcrum...

Do the Dark Elves Beastmasters [Handlers] get their attacks as well as the Hydra itself?

The Hydra is a single "model".

Unlike other Monster/Handlers the Beastmasters [Handlers] are essentially ignored for most in game stuff.

Arguments For/Against?

The bearded one
17-07-2011, 01:00
Mmh... a toughy.. you test me sir, you test me..

I don't recall if the dark elf handlers now use the "monster and handlers" rules from the BRB (page 73) now.. in those rules it says they are said to be "ignored for most gaming purposes, treating the monster itself as the extent of the unit".

The rules are quite specific though that only 1 model can attack a fulcrum so I would adhere to that rule, and really let only 1 model attack the fulcrum, even if the handlers are ignored for most gaming purposes. I'd nominate the hydra to attack and let that be that. It's 1 model after all, and letting a handler attack, would be using 2 (or 3) models.

EDMM
17-07-2011, 01:14
It is one model that gets to make attacks for the handlers if they are alive.

Yes, the handlers get to attack.

The bearded one
17-07-2011, 01:29
It is one model that gets to make attacks for the handlers if they are alive.

Yes, the handlers get to attack.

I don't think that's correct. "In close combat the handlers can direct their attacks against any enemy in base contact with their monster." This doesn't seem to imply that the monster model makes the attacks for the handlers, just that the handlers attacks thing in contact with the monster.

I checked the dark elf book and the hydra has the "monster and handlers" special rule. Pretty handy that they called the 8th edition rule the same as the 7th edition rule :)

b4z
17-07-2011, 01:41
The Hydra is a single model. And the [Hydra] monster is 'the extent of the unit.'
and
The Beastmasters can attack whatever is in base contact with the the monster [Hydra].
and
The monster [Hydra] which is 'the extent of the unit' is in base contact with the Wizard on top of the fulcrum.
therefore
The Beastmasters can attack the Wizard.

Warhammer Rulebook P.73
MONSTER AND HANDLERS
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. When
the monster sufiers an unsaved wound, roll a D6.
On a roll of 1-4 the monster suffers the wound as
nomtal, but on a roll of S-6 a handler model is
removed instead. Once all the handlers have been
removed, the monster must take a Monster
Reaction test just like a ridden monster that loses
its rider.

In close combat, the handlers can direct their
attacks against any enemy in base contact with their
monster. The handlers are otherwise assumed to
have their hands too full controlling the monster to
carry out any actions like shooting, or casting
spells, etc. In addition the handlers cannot be
charged, attacked or otherwise afiectcd 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.
If the monster is removed, so are its handlers.

Dark Elves FAQ 1.4
Page 58 – War Hydra, Special Rules
Change the Beastmasters special rule to “Beastmasters: The
bulk of the War Hydra makes a great shield for the
Beastmasters that drive it, protecting them from missile fire
and close combat attacks. Wounds that would normally be
randomised between the War Hydra and its handlers are
instead all applied against the War Hydra.”

The bearded one
17-07-2011, 01:45
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

Regardless of that 'extent' bit, still only 1 model can attack a wizard on a fulcrum, and if a handler is directing his attacks to the wizard in basecontact with it's monster, it is still another model that is attacking, thereby breaking the '1 model' rule.

b4z
17-07-2011, 01:49
If the monster is "the extent of the unit"...

then the handlers attacks originate from the ONE Monster model/base...

Therefore the handlers attack via/through the ONE Monster model/base.

Which does not break the ONE model allowed to attack the Wizard on top of a fulcrum rule.

The bearded one
17-07-2011, 01:55
Tha! Wishful thinking I say!

The monster is the extent of the unit for stuff like movement, LoS etc. but the unit still physically consists of multiple models. The handlers can't be touched, overrun into, block charges or LoS and so forth but they are still multiple models and bases and aren't confined to 1 base. Handlers direct their attacks through the monster, it is not the monster/base itself making those attacks. If the monster is fighting 1 model is fighting. If a handler is making his attacks as well, it is multiple models fighting. A handler is a model. Models are physical miniatures with their own rules and stats and even if they are ignored for most purposes, they're not erased from existance so even if his attacks are made through the monster, it is a model making attacks, through another model.

Besides, a hydra is powerful enough as it is anyway without needing 6 armourpiercing attacks added.

b4z
17-07-2011, 02:09
"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"

Read As Written = the monster covers both the monster and the handlers.

Therefore, the handlers are part of the monster.

When the monster attacks, so do the handlers, because they are part of the monster.

The handlers attacks go through the monster.

The monster is one model.

The Wizard can only be attacked by one model.

The handlers can contribute their attacks.

----------

The Handlers of the Hydra cannot be wounded, therefore there is no need to even play with the Hydra Beastmaster models at all.

I believe there are similarities to be drawn :

A warmachine has 3 Attacks in Close Combat, it is ONE model [the warmachine itself].
It may have 3 Crew models, and they may be models on the table, but they are merely aesthetic wound counters at best.

The bearded one
17-07-2011, 02:20
The monster is treated as the extent of the unit. That does not necessarily mean that the handlers are part of the monster, but that the handler models are simply ignored and attacks and stuff are made through the monster model, though not by. I think that is crucial. Through the monster, not by the monster. After all you would also have to say "the monster and handlers make their attacks", not "the monster makes everybody's attacks"

The hydra is the only instance where you could get away with just glueing the handlers onto the hydra base as there the wounds aren't randomised wether they wound the hydra or handlers, but all taken by the hydra. With other monsters and handlers you attack and you wound the monster and take the monster's saves and then randomise if you hit a handler or the monster.

sorberec
17-07-2011, 09:27
If the monster is "the extent of the unit"...


Surely the question is if the monster is the extent of the model...

b4z
17-07-2011, 09:39
Surely the question is if the monster is the extent of the model...

Correct.

Arguments For/Against?

The bearded one
17-07-2011, 10:14
I think it implies that the monster should be treated as the extent of the entire unit for purposes like movement and line of sight, and the unit should be treated as though the monster is the only thing physically there. The existence of the handler models should be ignored for those purposes, bu the handlers still exist as models for their attacks and special rules, which they direct through the monster, but are not made by the monster.

b4z
17-07-2011, 15:05
Im more interested in Rules As Written, rather than 'should' and 'implies'.

There doesn't seem to be a solid case AGAINST why the Handlers can provide their Attacks.

Yet there is a case FOR why the Handles can provide their Attacks.

Tregar
17-07-2011, 16:57
I think the Handlers can attack: whatever the case, in game terms they're not a separate model, and can attack anything the Hydra can attack. So, they can attack here. Yay them!

The bearded one
17-07-2011, 17:12
Well.. ask yourself; if a hydra and handlers would attack a fulcrum, who would be attacking? The hydra and handlers. That's a hydra, and handlers. That's multiple models. Even though you ignore them for most purposes, that does not mean the handlers are sort of sucked into the hydra and turn into 1 model making attacks. It's 3 models making attacks.

You treat the hydra as the extent of the unit. You treat it as though the hydra forms the boundaries of the unit and that the handlers aren't there for movement and stuff, but the handlers are still models that are attacking. You just act like they're invisible. The handlers and hydra don't turn into a single model. In order for the monster and handlers to be allowed to attack a fulcrum, they need to be turned into a single model. Handlers are seperate models, they are just not looked at when determining where the unit starts and ends e.g. "the extent of the unit".

In short; the hydra is counted as what the extent of the unit is, but that doesn't mean the handlers are sucked into the hydra and become 1 model.


Imagine yourself explaining it to your opponent. "You count the hydra as determining what the extent of the unit is, so obviously therefore the handlers become part of the hydra and they become 1 model that can attack the fulcrum together". No, you just count the hydra and ignore the handlers for determining what the extent of the unit is. This doesn't mean the hydra and handlers become 1 model or the hydra makes the handler attacks, it means you basically pretend like the hydra is the only thing there, in order to determine what the extent of this unit is. The handlers are still there and making attacks through the hydra, but you just imagine they're not there when determining what the extent of the hydra is.

Tregar
17-07-2011, 19:43
Well.. ask yourself; if a hydra and handlers would attack a fulcrum, who would be attacking? The hydra and handlers. That's a hydra, and handlers. That's multiple models. Even though you ignore them for most purposes, that does not mean the handlers are sort of sucked into the hydra and turn into 1 model making attacks. It's 3 models making attacks.

That is what I thought when glancing over the original thread question, but then I read the actual rules that are pertinent to the situation. And the rules are, the Handlers are not actual "models" for the purpose of the game (although they can be represented as models, either on their own bases or added to the Hydra's base), they're just this pair that exists to direct 6 extra attacks at whatever the Hydra is fighting (and provide LD). Not too dissimilar to how a chariot has horse models, chariot model and crew models all at the same time, fighting as one. You yourself stated: "Models are physical miniatures with their own rules and stats and even if they are ignored for most purposes, they're not erased from existance so even if his attacks are made through the monster, it is a model making attacks, through another model." A chariot crewman is a physical miniature with its own rules and stats, so does that mean if a chariot is in contact with a fulcrum, only one charioteer or steed may attack?

(I'm not entirely sure if chariots can charge a Fulcrum, if not then replace chariot with Stegadon in my example)

In fact most of the time I've seen people describing how the Handlers work for the Hydra, they just say "like with chariots". Pretty easy, and doesn't cause any conflicts.

Another counterexample are familiars, such as the Warriors of Chaos "Warrior Familiar" (Or a Sword-Gnoblar on an Ogre Tyrant, rawwr!). While Chaos Familiars DO have their own, separately-based models, I would still count both the Sorcerer and Familiar as a single model, and allow both to attack. Hell, this might even actually come up in a Storm of Chaos game someday :D

The bearded one
17-07-2011, 20:02
A chariot crewman is a physical miniature with its own rules and stats, so does that mean if a chariot is in contact with a fulcrum, only one charioteer or steed may attack?

No actually, because the entirity is 1 model on 1 base, treated as 1 thing. ;) A chaos lord riding a manticore is also 1 model. A stegadon with skinks is also 1 model. a 'stegadon model'. A monster with handlers is a monster (1 model) with several handlers (several models). Also by the way on page 4 of the BRB "every model has a profile that lists the value of it's different characteristics". Handlers have their own profiles.

Models are "the citadel miniatures used to play games of warhammer" (page 3), so technically even a chaos familiar is a seperate model, making attacks.

Handlers are models and monsters are models. If both of them are making attacks on a fulcrum, then multiple models are attacking a fulcrum. A handler model is a model, even if the rules mostly ignore them. If a monster model is attacking a fulcrum, a handler can't attack that fulcrum as there already is a model attacking the fulcrum. The handler models have their own attacks. If the handler's attacks are made, then the handler model is attacking, even if those attacks are directed through the hydra. Simple observation should give the answer wether it is legal. If multiple models make their attacks, it is illegal. A handler making attacks is a model making attacks. I think if clever reading is required to deduce that a handler model actually isn't a model, but part of the hydra model, it is probably wishful thinking.

b4z
17-07-2011, 20:24
Just to be clear, are you saying if you attack an Arcane Fulcrum with a Chaos Lord on Manticore:

EITHER the Chaos Lord gets to attack OR the Manticore gets to attack BUT not both.

OR are you saying the complete opposite.

Surgency
17-07-2011, 20:44
no, he even says that a Chaos Lord riding a Manticore is a single model...

The bearded one
17-07-2011, 21:13
Just to be clear, are you saying if you attack an Arcane Fulcrum with a Chaos Lord on Manticore:

EITHER the Chaos Lord gets to attack OR the Manticore gets to attack BUT not both.

OR are you saying the complete opposite.


no, he even says that a Chaos Lord riding a Manticore is a single model...

Large creatures with something on their back aren't 2+ models stacked on top eachother. ;) They count as 1 big model. For example the manticore with chaos lord; Page 104 BRB: "Characters on a mount are treated as a single character model for all rules purposes". The rest of page 105 repeatedly calls a character on a monster, chariot or monstrous mount and single model.

Something like a stegadon or a chariot isn't 5 or 6 models, they are 1 model but consist of several living (or undead or whatever) parts attatched together forming 1 model. Monsters and handlers are different can of worms alltogether and in the 'monters and handlers' rule on page 73, handlers are mentioned to be models.

As I'm tired and the room is kinda spinning, I'll take a fresh look at all the rules concerning fulcrums, models and handlers again later :p . I haven't found anything conclusive that'd make the handlers part of the hydra model, so that they count as 1 model to make attacks. All I found is handlers making their attacks to enemies in basecontact with their monster, and using the monster to determine what the extent of the unit it (I'm pretty positive that with this they simply mean only the hydra's base counts as the physical extent of the unit, for measuring and stuff and that if you had to measure or charge or see through the monster unit, you ignored the handlers. I'm no native english speaker but this is what I'm making from 'extent of the unit'. ;) )

Come to think of it.. apart from 'the monster is the extent of the unit' I haven't seen any convincing pro-arguments, and just because the monster is the extent of the unit does not mean the monster and handlers are merged together into 1 model, not even one with a split profile like cavalry or chariots.

b4z
17-07-2011, 22:08
and using the monster to determine what the extent of the unit it (I'm pretty positive that with this they simply mean only the hydra's base counts as the physical extent of the unit, for measuring and stuff and that if you had to measure or charge or see through the monster unit, you ignored the handlers. I'm no native english speaker but this is what I'm making from 'extent of the unit'. ;) )

'Extent of the unit' to me [a native english speaker] means the monster IS the entire amount or extent of the unit.

--------------------

If you had a Character, with a magic item like the other trickster shard [re-roll successful ward saves], attacking a Wizard on top of a Fulcrum...
then the Character CAN use the magic item because the Character is considered to be IN BASE CONTACT with the Wizard.

If you have a Hydra attacking a Wizard on top of a Fulcrum then the Hydra is ALSO considered to be IN BASE CONTACT with the Wizard.

Which meets the pre-requesite of the Handlers being able to Attack, therefore they can attack.

The bearded one
17-07-2011, 22:25
I'm not a native english speaker, but I'm not that bad at it either.
I would view 'extent' as this:

ex·tent (k-stnt)
n.
1.
a. The range, magnitude, or distance over which a thing extends:
b. The degree to which a thing extends:

In this case it would be that the hydra's unit extends to the degree of the hydra model. Fitting with the context where the extent-bit was taking out of to me this seems to be about what is physically considered to be the "border", if you will, of the hydra unit, in the same manner as you measure things from a warmachine but not it's crew. In any case I'd like some other people's opinions on the meaing of 'extent' here because we both have our own interpretations.

Your basecontact argument would imply that if I have a rank and file member attacking a wizard on a fulcrum, other members of the unit could make supporting attacks because the first rank & file dude is in basecontact.

If the handlers were to attack that way, they would be breaking the 'only 1 model can attack the fulcrum' rule. They have the technical possibility, but are forbidden to attack through the hydra because of that rule.

EnternalVoid
18-07-2011, 03:42
I am going to go outside this a bit and go for a different approach. I think people might need to look at a different part of the rule.

I believe that the handlers can attack the fulcrum, I will state that right off the bat. That said I understand the argument against it and why people would think that way.

In my opinion, Handlers are not technically models but Battlefield Tokens or Counters. If you look at the Monster and Handlers entry in the special rules it actually makes note of this. In the second to the last sentence of the second paragraph when it is saying the handlers can't be charged, attacked, or blocking line of sight they are to be adjusted it says "Just as you would for any other battlefield marker or counters." To me this sentence implies they ARE battlefield markers or counters, like you would place beside a unit to mark some significance. To that extent they are not technical models in the same way as a regiment is made up of models, but of a monster and its Handler 'tokens'.

Effectively the Hydra gets an extra number of attacks based on these Handlers, It is not like a unit fighting in ranks or support attacks. It is more like with Ogre characters getting attacks from sword gnoblars. Just they want you to have the handler models as some sort of token to represent how many you have left the same way you show how many are left in war machine crews.

Take a look at the war machine rules on page 108, in the Box that is labeled, The Crew. Yes I know we are talking about Monsters and Handlers but if you read it, it goes through the exact same thing about the crew not being a unit per say and that the cannon is the full extent of the model, and that the crew are battlefield tokens or counters. It even goes into a player should have them around the warmachine to provide a pleasing aesthetics.

Now I understand the arguement about them being models, for a long time they have been and even in the Monster and Handler section and one point it says Handler Model in the special rule. But it only says Handler Model once, otherwise they are refered to has Handlers and not handler models and when it does say Handler Model in that one part is is talking about actually removing the actual 'Model' when a 5-6 is roll. Now lets look at that part of the paragraph real fast.

It says when a monster suffers an unsave wound roll a d6. On a 1-4 the monster suffers a wound as normal. On a 5-6 remove a Handler Model, to which they are talking about the actual token model. This is treated more akin to a regeneration roll then rolling to see who is hit with a character on a monster or shooting at a unit small enough to pick out a character.

This all said, GW is horrible about its working at times but from what I am looking at it does look like the handlers can attack as they are not their own individual models in a unit but tokens with their own special rules representing an extention of the Monster model.

drear
18-07-2011, 14:09
im going to say no, 1 model is 1 hydra.

but interestingly enough, when attacking a fulcrum, mostly the new peices of terrain, you can never be in base contact with the wizard, as he is 5-6 inches abouve the battle feild, and the hydra wont fit on the fulcrum.

so RAW ''The Beastmasters can attack whatever is in base contact with the the monster [Hydra].''

means you do not get the beast masters attacks. as they are not pysically in base contact with anything?

Tregar
18-07-2011, 14:14
Good reply EternalVoid (Bad reply drear: when you assault a building, you're counted as being in base contact with one enemy model, no need for more semantic arguments). The bearded one's arguments seemed to revolve around the fact that a Hydra Handler IS a model, but your quote proves definitively that the Handlers are to be treated as tokens/counters rather than models in their own right.

I'd still be interested to know if the bearded one would be in favour of a Chaos Sorcerer's Familiar (a separate "model" by virtue of the fact it has a base; a mere "token" in how it is usually used in-game) getting to attack a Wizard in an Arcane Fulcrum.

wbravenboer
18-07-2011, 14:17
In the case of the Hydra I would consider the Hydra THE model in question, the handlers are not part of the model as such, just like a Lord on a Dragon for instance. I do agree there could be some questions and arguments during the game. For now, when it comes up I will use only the Hydra as the attacker, this seems the most logical until a FAQ clears it up...

drear
18-07-2011, 14:20
it was just a suggestion, and its not a bad answer, just not very good =p

its not refering to the unit however, it isnt saying 1 unit or 1 member of the unit, its saying 1 model can attack, a hyrda is 1 model, and the handlers are 3 models.

Tregar
18-07-2011, 14:33
Haha no problem, wasn't meant to be mean, glad you took it in the spirit it was intended ;)

As is shown by EV, the handlers aren't really models at all per se; units are made up of models. The Hydra is the extent of the unit. Therefore, the Hydra unit consists of the following models: the Hydra. Thus, treat the Handlers as tokens or counters, as the rules tell you too, and there's no problem! Except, of course, that the Dark Elf Hydra gets even more powerful relatively. However, interpreting rules based on what's "fair" or not more often leads to more problems than it solves. I think if two or more players want to say that the Hydra handlers don't get to attack in spite of the rules suggesting they do, then that's fair enough and should be encouraged! As should a general price increase by about 50 points for the Hydra ;)

The bearded one
18-07-2011, 16:18
I'd still be interested to know if the bearded one would be in favour of a Chaos Sorcerer's Familiar (a separate "model" by virtue of the fact it has a base; a mere "token" in how it is usually used in-game) getting to attack a Wizard in an Arcane Fulcrum.

A chaos warrior familiar is an arcane item and in it's rules there is actually no mention of it having a model. It's basically something like a swordgnoblar on an ogre.

I think you'd need to look at this rule really literal, as if picking someone off the street, showing him the hydra and handlers assaulting the fulcrum and asking him how many models there are.


In all honesty I think the entire debate will be useless when GW FAQs it as GW usually doesn't look too deeply into a rules issue and more or less flips a coin or provides a very random answer.

b4z
18-07-2011, 19:18
I think you'd need to look at this rule really literal, as if picking someone off the street, showing him the hydra and handlers assaulting the fulcrum and asking him how many models there are.

That is not the point of this rule discussion though, im not interested in someone off the streets opinion on how many models there are.

I am interested in Rules As Written.

The point Eternal Void makes is a GOOD argument FOR handlers getting to attack.. "being battlefield markers or counters" and...


from what I am looking at it does look like the handlers can attack as they are not their own individual models in a unit but tokens with their own special rules representing an extention of the Monster model.

And i made a comparison to Warmachines earlier which was hinting at his vein of argument.


I believe there are similarities to be drawn :

A warmachine has 3 Attacks in Close Combat, it is ONE model [the warmachine itself].
It may have 3 Crew models, and they may be models on the table, but they are merely aesthetic wound counters at best.

Tregar
18-07-2011, 20:01
A chaos warrior familiar is an arcane item and in it's rules there is actually no mention of it having a model.

You're not listening to the point I'm making. It's a very simple comparison, because there is actually no mention of it having a model: the Hydra Handlers, I mean! Even if you look at the listing of the troop types in the back of the rulebook, handlers have "-" as their troop type. As such they're not really a model.


I think you'd need to look at this rule really literal, as if picking someone off the street, showing him the hydra and handlers assaulting the fulcrum and asking him how many models there are.

This is why I'm asking you about the Warrior Familiar. Here, let me illustrate the problem for you:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1050005
That's a Chaos Sorcerer. And that's a Familiar. You see the separate base the familiar is on? That's exactly the same amount of evidence that a Familiar is its own "model" as there is for a Hydra Handler being its own model, for gaming purposes.

In case you're still wondering why I keep brining up Familiars, it's just to show that just because something is provided with its own base, it doesn't make it a model. You need to look at the rules- and just as a Warrior Familiar is really just a magic item for a Chaos Sorcerer that provides an extra attack, a Handler is just a token or counter that provides extra attacks.

Now, if you want to argue that Familiars are separate models and don't get to attack as well, or that it's a stupid rule, okay, fine... but please don't let the point I'm making fly over your head again. I hate repeating myself ;)

The bearded one
18-07-2011, 20:08
You're not listening to the point I'm making. It's a very simple comparison, because there is actually no mention of it having a model: the Hydra Handlers, I mean! Even if you look at the listing of the troop types in the back of the rulebook, handlers have "-" as their troop type. As such they're not really a model.

The monster & handler rules mention models for handlers, the familiar item rules do not. You only look at the hydra for determining the extent of the unit (for measuring etc.), but the rules still require you to have models (to act in a manner similar to counters). The only proof that you need models for familiars is that they are on pictures. If familiars weren't on pictures there would be nothing to assume from there should be models for familiars.



The big difference in combat with warmachines is that those rules specifically state the warmachine makes the attacks.
"the warmachine makes a number of attacks equal to the number of surviving crew models" page 110 BRB

whereas the handler rules state specifically that the handlers direct their attacks against any enemy in basecontact with their monster.
"In close combat, the handlers can direct their attacks against any enemy in base contact with their monster" page 73 BRB


There is definately a difference. Whatever the answer it is absolutely not black & white. These above handlers and warmachine crew rules indicate that in one case the warmachine is making the attacks, but just using the crew as counters for determining how many attacks it has. If a warmachine could move and charge, it would be able to attack a fulcrum with the attacks of it's crew. In the case of the handler rules, it mentions them direction their attacks through the monster, which means they are not part of the monster model itself.

lparigi34
18-07-2011, 20:45
I agree with b4z point of view... handlers are nothing but a wounds + attacks bonus to the hydra, being ignored for all other game purpose. They act basically as counters to know if the Hydra still has those bonuses and for checking for monster reaction.

This demands to be FAQ´d

GodlessM
19-07-2011, 01:43
If the monster is "the extent of the unit"...

then the handlers attacks originate from the ONE Monster model/base...

Therefore the handlers attack via/through the ONE Monster model/base.

Which does not break the ONE model allowed to attack the Wizard on top of a fulcrum rule.

This is only true if stating the Hydra has 7A @ S5 and 6A @ S3 is true, which it isn't.

minionboy
19-07-2011, 01:44
I'm sure i'll be unpopular for taking this stance, but i'm going to go the locical route.

The SoM book says 1 model, not unit may attack. How many models do you see in the pic?

I'll give you a hint, 3.

Surgency
19-07-2011, 02:03
If the handlers die due to taking randomized wounds, do they still make their attacks? After all, you ignore the model for all intents and purposes, right? That means then that the handler still gets to make its full attacks even if dead.

The bearded one
19-07-2011, 02:51
If handlers die, they can't make attacks. The rules say that handlers must direct their attacks to enemies in basecontact with their monster. First they have to be alive in order to direct attacks and are not simply a 'monster gets X number of extra attacks on X weaponskill and strenght' bonus rule.

Also they are ignored for most gaming purposes, not all.

SacredCow
19-07-2011, 05:36
First off, I would like to commend everyone for keeping this debate civil.

I am actually on the fence over this topic. Both sides have presented very strong arguments and I am eager to see the outcome.

That being said, since the handlers are ignored for most rule purposes and they cannot be charged, attacked, etc.. would it be legal to attach them onto the same base as the hydra (via magnets or what have you)? If this is legal, would it then be considered one model?

b4z
19-07-2011, 11:19
if you look at the listing of the troop types in the back of the rulebook, handlers have "-" as their troop type. As such they're not really a model.
This lends yet more credence to the FOR argument.


Also they are ignored for most gaming purposes, not all.

The rules say that "they are ignored for most gaming purposes [not all]" and then go on to describe the various situations where the handlers are NOT ignored for gaming purposes.


would it be legal to attach them onto the same base as the hydra (via magnets or what have you)? If this is legal, would it then be considered one model?
I certainly do that.

Tregar
19-07-2011, 13:56
I'm sure i'll be unpopular for taking this stance, but i'm going to go the locical route.

The SoM book says 1 model, not unit may attack. How many models do you see in the pic?

I'll give you a hint, 3.

How many models in the link I posted above? ;) I'll give you a hint... one model, two bases. General protection error, warhammer crashes :D

The bearded one is at least right, in that the M&H rules do refer to the handler model as, well, a model. In conclusion, who the hell knows (GW certainly don't ;) )!

sulla
19-07-2011, 14:44
Also they are ignored for most gaming purposes, not all.Unfortunately, that poorly written rule in the M&H section makes no sense unless you take it to mean they are ignored for all gaming purposes unless otherwise specified.

As to whether a M&H handlers get to attack, I'd feel uncomfortable not allowing them to attack when that means that they don't get to attack but incoming attacks can be randomised onto them to kill them. Doesn't make much sense to me. (I know this doesn't apply to hydra, but it does apply to M&H in general). If attacks can go one way, they should be able to go back the other IMO.

jtrowell
19-07-2011, 15:00
Question: is there currently a way, any way, to kill the handlers without killing the hydra ? I know that the current FAQ make them more or less untargettables, but is there some spell or special ability that can still kill them despite this ?

Surgency
19-07-2011, 15:10
As to whether a M&H handlers get to attack, I'd feel uncomfortable not allowing them to attack when that means that they don't get to attack but incoming attacks can be randomised onto them to kill them. Doesn't make much sense to me. (I know this doesn't apply to hydra, but it does apply to M&H in general). If attacks can go one way, they should be able to go back the other IMO.

I would rule it similarly to a challenge, in that the only model you can wound is the Hydra, so no wound allocation to the Handlers

Tregar
19-07-2011, 15:18
Perhaps the query should change focus to Hellcannon and Handlers, since the Hellcannon handlers can actually die to normal attacks (plus less chance of answers being swayed by biases of the "but the hydra is broken!" variety).


Question: is there currently a way, any way, to kill the handlers without killing the hydra ? I know that the current FAQ make them more or less untargettables, but is there some spell or special ability that can still kill them despite this ?

The only way I know is with a Beastmen spell that forces Monsters to attack their Handlers.

The bearded one
19-07-2011, 16:42
I certainly do that.

Strictly speaking it isn't legal, but the hydra is the only monster-handler unit where you can get away with it without it creating any issues.. except when targetted by that beastman spell, but then you'll just have to remember the handlers are dead.

b4z
20-07-2011, 11:11
Strictly speaking it isn't legal, but the hydra is the only monster-handler unit where you can get away with it without it creating any issues.. except when targetted by that beastman spell, but then you'll just have to remember the handlers are dead.

I should replace the two handlers that are pointlessly floating around with 2 coins/tokens then ;)
Lends even more [now visual] support to the FOR argument.


Also they are ignored for most gaming purposes, not all.

The rules say that "they are ignored for most gaming purposes [not all]" and then go on to describe the various situations where the handlers are NOT ignored for gaming purposes.

[the] rule in the M&H section makes no sense unless you take it to mean they are ignored for all gaming purposes unless otherwise specified.
Any further discussion around that point?

I still maintain that there simply isn't a good enough case AGAINST the Handlers providing their Attacks.


If we do OPEN IT UP like Tregar suggests to Monsters and Handlers IN GENERAL... eg. Salamander + Skinks, or Hellcannon + Chaos Dwarves

Then HOW does that effect/change the debate?

GodlessM
20-07-2011, 11:48
Perhaps the query should change focus to Hellcannon and Handlers, since the Hellcannon handlers can actually die to normal attacks

No they can't, the Hellcannon and the Hydra follow the exact same rules now, this is no longer 7th edition.

The bearded one
20-07-2011, 13:49
I should replace the two handlers that are pointlessly floating around with 2 coins/tokens then ;)
Lends even more [now visual] support to the FOR argument.

How so? "I'll just ignore the rules for ease of use" is not a good FOR argument ;)

I still maintain that there isn't a good enough case FOR handlers providing their attacks. The 'extent' bit is quite dubious for interpretation.

The Hydra has been errata'd that the handlers can't be hit, but with all other monsters and handlers they still can be killed, and their attacks are lost when they are killed. This lends proof that handlers are seperate, because otherwise the monster should always be able to make attacks from handlers and they shouldn't be lost, if the monster + handlers counted as 1 single model.

Urgat
20-07-2011, 14:24
I'm sure i'll be unpopular for taking this stance, but i'm going to go the locical route.

The SoM book says 1 model, not unit may attack. How many models do you see in the pic?

I'll give you a hint, 3.

Yeah. But I think that's too simple. You need to make it more complicated. Oh wait, there's already 3 pages of "more complicated" :p A model is a model, a model is something on a base. The handlers are each on their own bases, so they're other models apart from the hydra. There's no rule discussion in there that applies, if you ask me.

Tregar
20-07-2011, 16:03
I love that not a single person who has said what you've just said has acknowledged that Familiars have their own bases, yet we don't count them as models. How inconvenient!


No they can't, the Hellcannon and the Hydra follow the exact same rules now, this is no longer 7th edition.

No, they don't. Wounds on the Hellcannon can be randomised onto the crew, whilst that doesn't happen with Hydra handlers. This is a new rule for 8th edition, FYI.

The bearded one
20-07-2011, 16:10
I love that not a single person who has said what you've just said has acknowledged that Familiars have their own bases, yet we don't count them as models. How inconvenient!

There is no proof that familiars have/need their own models, except for them being on pictures. The monster-handler rules mention models, and require models for their rules to properly function.


No, they don't. Wounds on the Hellcannon can be randomised onto the crew, whilst that doesn't happen with Hydra handlers. This is a new rule for 8th edition, FYI.

Hellcannons and Hydra's follow the same rule: Monsters and handlers from the BRB. The hydra has simply gotten an FAQ on their beastmasters rule to remove the randomisation of the monsters and handlers rule.

Dark Elves FAQ 1.4
Page 58 – War Hydra, Special Rules
Change the Beastmasters special rule to “Beastmasters: The
bulk of the War Hydra makes a great shield for the
Beastmasters that drive it, protecting them from missile fire
and close combat attacks. Wounds that would normally be
randomised between the War Hydra and its handlers are
instead all applied against the War Hydra.”

SacredCow
20-07-2011, 16:10
The Hydra has been errata'd that the handlers can't be hit, but with all other monsters and handlers they still can be killed, and their attacks are lost when they are killed. This lends proof that handlers are seperate, because otherwise the monster should always be able to make attacks from handlers and they shouldn't be lost, if the monster + handlers counted as 1 single model.

This isn't entirely true in that ridden monsters are one model but the rider/monster can be killed and thus the "model" loses those attacks. This can also happen with Stegadons where skink crew are killed and those attacks lost, but the steg is considered one model.

Tregar
20-07-2011, 16:12
So, bearded one, what you're saying is that the Hydra and Hellcannon don't follow the same rules pertaining to whether the handlers can die or not. So was I :) GodlessM was saying they follow the same rules, which they don't. Hence why I corrected his wrong correction.

Please don't be so eager to disagree with me that you miss what we're actually talking about ;)

The bearded one
20-07-2011, 16:13
So, bearded one, what you're saying is that the Hydra and Hellcannon don't follow the same rules pertaining to whether the handlers can die or not. So was I :) GodlessM was saying they follow the same rules, which they don't. Hence why I corrected his wrong correction.

Please don't be so eager to disagree with me that you miss what we're actually talking about ;)

Technically they follow the same rule, the 'monster and handlers' rule from the BRB. Hydra's just have another rule changing a portion of the 'monster and handler' rule.


This isn't entirely true in that ridden monsters are one model but the rider/monster can be killed and thus the "model" loses those attacks. This can also happen with Stegadons where skink crew are killed and those attacks lost, but the steg is considered one model.

Fair point, though their rules very explicitely mention they are a single model for rulespurposes and monsters seem to be an exception to the normal rules where a mount just disappears after it's rider is killed.

SacredCow
20-07-2011, 16:36
Fair point, though their rules very explicitely mention they are a single model for rulespurposes.

I'm just saying there is a precedent set for single models that lose attacks/armor saves/etc. when part of the model is killed. Since they exist, the loss of handlers can't really be used as evidence that they are not a single model.


As to whether a M&H handlers get to attack, I'd feel uncomfortable not allowing them to attack when that means that they don't get to attack but incoming attacks can be randomised onto them to kill them. Doesn't make much sense to me. (I know this doesn't apply to hydra, but it does apply to M&H in general). If attacks can go one way, they should be able to go back the other IMO.

I think this is the strongest case for allowing monster handlers their attacks.

Urgat
20-07-2011, 16:38
I love that not a single person who has said what you've just said has acknowledged that Familiars have their own bases, yet we don't count them as models. How inconvenient!

When you find me profiles for them in the chaos sorcerer entry, or any special rules alluding to them, I'll hear you out ;). You could also point out that for two editions, the doomdiver catapult came with a doomdiver that I could put on the table for whatever reason that pleases me (I use the past tense because now that dude is used as a template). It also has snotling, and it comes with a propper base. Where do those stand when you play the doomdiver? And yet the DD doesn't have the 3 crewmen it is supposed to have (strange model, that one). Your familiar is just a prop, it means nothing, it has no rules, it has no profile, it is just a nice thing they put in the blister, and I'll tell you, they never thought for one instant that anybody would ever use it to argue rules :p I am sure that if we search for it, there are other instances of small goodies added to a model that have no use whatsoever in the game.
There is a definition of what a model is in the BRB I believe, and the hydra gives exceptions, but does not remove the nature of the handlers as models.


I think this is the strongest case for allowing monster handlers their attacks.

Is it any different than with a unit charging a fulcrum?

The bearded one
20-07-2011, 16:53
There is a definition of what a model is in the BRB I believe, and the hydra gives exceptions, but does not remove the nature of the handlers as models.

Indeed there is:

Page 3 of the BRB: "The citadel miniatures used to play games of warhammer are referred to as 'models' in the rules that follow. Models represent a huge variety of troops, ranging from cowardly goblins and noble elves, to mighty dragons. To reflect all the differences between such warriors, each model has its own characteristics profile"

Urgat
20-07-2011, 17:15
Thank you. I believe that last line closes the "familiar" debate, and makes the handlers models of their own.

The bearded one
20-07-2011, 17:19
Thank you. I believe that last line closes the "familiar" debate, and makes the handlers models of their own.

The counter argument was that "the hydra is counted as the extent of the unit" according to the monster & handlers rule, but I don't think 'extent' is correctly interpreted here.

Urgat
20-07-2011, 17:24
The whole topic is based on how people want to interpret things, rather than what they really are anyway. A model's a model, I can't believe this is being argued. Wait, why am I even taking part in this? I've lost it again >< I retract all that I have said, I want no part in this :p

The bearded one
20-07-2011, 17:31
I think I'll join you.. :p

SacredCow
20-07-2011, 21:05
When you find me profiles for them in the chaos sorcerer entry, or any special rules alluding to them, I'll hear you out ;).

One of the more popular arguments being presented here was simply looking at the table and counting the models. The familiars are provided a "model" that can be used for them, are they not?


Is it any different than with a unit charging a fulcrum?

Yes, because with a unit, the reason for other models being killed is no different than any other unit assaulting a building... with the exception that only one model may fight. I assume that means that units would get step up just as they would as if they were assaulting a normal building. If the wizard or his mount have an initiative higher than the assaulting unit, they could cut down however many they like and the assaulting unit will still be able to fight with one model (unless the unit is wiped out). The handlers on the other hand have no opportunity to "step up" so how could they be casualties when they cannot fight? I think they are very different situations.


The whole topic is based on how people want to interpret things, rather than what they really are anyway. A model's a model, I can't believe this is being argued. Wait, why am I even taking part in this? I've lost it again >< I retract all that I have said, I want no part in this :p

I was under the impression that this was another one of those theoretical (and rather nonsensical) RAW discussions and that nobody was actually taking it seriously :) I know I'm not, it's just fun to discuss what everyone's take is on the subject. Strictly speaking, the BRB refers to the handlers as models... so by RAW they are models. That really should be the end of the actual RAW discussion.

As for the spirit of the rules... if the handlers can be killed (with the exception of the de hydra) then I think they should be allowed their attacks.

The bearded one
20-07-2011, 22:02
One of the more popular arguments being presented here was simply looking at the table and counting the models. The familiars are provided a "model" that can be used for them, are they not?

The difference here being that according to the rules you need models for handlers in the first place and familiars do not, and people simply add them because they're on pictures. It is the equivalent of me adding models to the table to represent my runic items, or to add a skink to represent the attack from my slann model (it's the skink scribe on his chair that's attacking). It has no basis in the rules, I just add a little token.

The familiar is the same, they just happen to be on pictures, probably because they're older models that had more uses in old rules and preserved in this manner (just guessing)?


And that is why the familiars are not a good comparison. We should look at the table for all the models that should be there according to the rules.



Damnit, why did I go back in here?!

SacredCow
20-07-2011, 23:19
As far as the familiar is concerned, I'm simply pointing out that looking at something and counting how many models are there is not a good acid test. If I chose to use the miniature that GW produces and put it on the table next to my wizard, is that familiar not a model? I realize for rules purposes, no it is not considered a model, but other posts in this thread were trying to point out how ludicrous it was to not consider a miniature placed on the table as a model. I'm only illustrating that even though there is a model placed on the table, it is not always considered a model for rules purposes.

The bearded one
21-07-2011, 00:02
The argument to consider all models on the table as models is still a valid one, but only when taking into account all the models that are supposed to be there according to the rules and not the ones that are just added there to be pretty. Models for familiars have no basis in the rules, handlers do.

SacredCow
21-07-2011, 00:27
I'm out of material to continue to play Devil's Advocate unless I want to delve into the domain of being completely obtuse. I concede the point :D

If nothing else, this has helped me inflate my post count lol

lparigi34
21-07-2011, 15:36
I'm out of material to continue to play Devil's Advocate unless I want to delve into the domain of being completely obtuse.

This is a helluva well written sentence... really! I am adding this to my signature

SacredCow
22-07-2011, 01:41
Thanks! I'm honored :)

Davo
03-08-2011, 17:58
I'll just throw into the hat that the familiar models are just a throwback to earlier editions of the game where a Chaos Sorcerer could take a familiar that was indeed a seperate model.

The familiar magic items that are available to them now make no mention of using a model.

Tregar
03-08-2011, 23:27
I'm sure we're all well aware of that ;)

Just prepare yourselves for the next army book that contains monsters and handlers, but incorporates the handler models into the main body of the monster (as with newer warmachines, e.g. the Skaven ones). Then it'll be a firm trip back to square one :D

Davo
04-08-2011, 00:41
I'm sure we're all well aware of that ;)

Just prepare yourselves for the next army book that contains monsters and handlers, but incorporates the handler models into the main body of the monster (as with newer warmachines, e.g. the Skaven ones). Then it'll be a firm trip back to square one :D

Hey, I'm not taking a side either way here, I just enjoy chiming in with fascinating titbits (or as is the case here totally irrelevant comment knowledge apparently). ;)

hashrat
04-08-2011, 01:23
The exceptions are listed clearly, use the handlers LD. That is it.
That is the only exception to "extent of the unit"!

Handlers get their attacks.

As for 'Most gaming purposes', no exception exists beyond LD and GW didn't tell us what 'most' is.