PDA

View Full Version : Fear causing characters in units



Pravus
05-05-2006, 11:05
Had a bit of a shock the other night - in a game of Chaos v Chaos my mounted daemonettes charged a unit of marauders being led by a champion of Nurgle. My opponent promptly declared that he didn't have to take a fear check as the unit was accompanied by a fear causing model. My initial reaction was that this was incorrect given that other psychological advantages possessed by a characters aren't trnasfered to their units - however, my opponent promptly pointed out a section in the BRB using the illustration of a unit of skinks being immune to fear due to them being accompanied by a Kroxigor (not a situtation that could ever occur now but the principle was the same). As such I conceded the point although I can't help feeling this was incorrect.

Does anyone know a) if this is correct and/or b) a reference to a rule or amendment that refutes it.

Thanks in advance

Avian
05-05-2006, 11:09
It refers to creatures, not characters. Thus it makes Cold One Riders immune to fear, for example.

On the other hand, it is specifically mentioned on page 100 that a character does not confer immunity to fear onto a unit he joins.

Pravus
05-05-2006, 13:12
Thanks for that.

T10
05-05-2006, 15:52
It refers to creatures, not characters. Thus it makes Cold One Riders immune to fear, for example.


Cold One Knights are immune to Fear because they (as individual models) cause Fear. The elves have their confidence bolstered by riding a Fear-causing mount and thus we can ignore their vulnerability to Fear.

The character's failure to share his own immunity to Fear with his unit does not necessarily have any bearing on the situation: There are other ways of achieving immunity to Fear than being a Fear causing model.

The rule is essentially applicable to mixed units, typically consisting of Fear/Terror causing beasts ("creatures") and their handlers, and it works quite well if you only apply the rule to units that naturally consist of such a mix.

However, the problem arises when you create the mix artificially by joining Fear-causing characters with other units (and to a lesser degree for normal characters in a unit of Fear-causers).

People complain when you put a Champion of Nurgle into a Marauder unit, but I've yet to hear anyone claim that a unit of Trolls led by an Orc Big Boss should take Fear tests...

In my opinion it is best to disregard the distiction between "character" and "creature" and apply the rule to all units with a mix of Fear-causing and non-Fear-causing models.

-T10

Ganymede
05-05-2006, 16:05
I agree... no weirdness pops up when you consider model and creature to mean the exact same thing.

Gorbad Ironclaw
05-05-2006, 18:14
See, I'd think it was easier, and more correct to disregard the character. So he cause fear, doesn't matter one bit. Now if it was a dragon, yeah, it would bolster there courage. But not just cause the bloke next to them looks a bit disgusting.

Ganymede
05-05-2006, 21:53
What makes a banshee any more of a creature than a wraith? What makes a kroxigor any more of a creature than a vampire?

bottom line, there is no "in game" definition of creature.

T10
06-05-2006, 06:22
See, I'd think it was easier, and more correct to disregard the character. So he cause fear, doesn't matter one bit. Now if it was a dragon, yeah, it would bolster there courage. But not just cause the bloke next to them looks a bit disgusting.

A Champion of Nurgle does not merely look disgusting: he actually causes Fear.

All models that cause Fear are equally frightening (and thus good to have on your team). The size or nature of the creature does not matter, nor does it's combat capabilities. Zombies cause fear, yet they totatally suck in close combat. Chaos Warriors are the best fighters in the game, yet they don't cause fear and are just as likely to flee from a regiment of Zombies as is an Elf Archer.

-T10

taer
06-05-2006, 15:28
Alrights....so lets figure out what we've got here.

A non fear causing unit with a fear causing character is charged by a fear causing unit. This can mean a couple of things.

1) the unit has to take a fear test and will require 6's to hit or will run away if outnumbered by the enemy, except for the character who is himself immune to the fear (still subject to running if his unit does)

2) Same as above except the unit won't run if outnumbered (I don't see this one being right)

3) The unit is basically immune to fear for a bargain price.

The same basic idea when fighting in additional rounds of combat.

Now, when fighting a unit that does not cause fear The enemy must take a fear test to charge if it will bring them into contact with the character or must take it if the character's unit charges. Failure either means a refusal to charge or requiring 6's to hit the character since he (the only fear-causer) isn't going to outnumber any unit at all. I think this part is pretty accurate.

Avian
06-05-2006, 16:27
Eh? Is this not quite well covered by page 100 in the rulebook?


I've yet to hear anyone claim that a unit of Trolls led by an Orc Big Boss should take Fear tests...
This is stated explicitly on said page of the rulebook, for example.

MarcoPollo
06-05-2006, 18:14
What about terror test when a fear causing creature is in a unit. Given T10's approach, the unit will not have to suffer from terror, only fear.

Again this seems a bit too much of a bargain for a fear causing opponent.

What about a saurus hero riding a cold one in a unit of saurus. Given this situation, the character is not confering the imunity to fear on the unit, the cold one is.

I agree with T10, it is much simpler and less of a point of argument if anything that causes fear makes the unit imune to fear. The wording seems cut and dry, but there are indeed exceptions. Where do you draw the line?

In my gaming group, we play it like T10.

Aeschylus
07-05-2006, 01:22
Eh? Is this not quite well covered by page 100 in the rulebook?


No. The correct answer is that the unit, being accompanied by the character, does not suffer the effects of fear. Here's why:

Rulebook, Page 82:

"[These rules] also apply to a unit that is accompanied by fear-causing creatures: A unit of skinks accompanied by a kroxigor, for example, would be immune to fear."

Ergo, a unit accompanied by a fear-causing character is immune to fear, if we accept that a character is a "creature". For the sake of sanity, since "creature" is not a technical term anywhere in the book, I think we must.

What does page 100 say?

"If a unit panics, or is forced to flee because of a fear or terror test, then any character who is aprt of the unit must flee even if he is immune to panic, fear, or terror."

Thus, page 100 is not relevant, since it deals with characters who are immune to fear, not characters that cause fear.

Characters that cause fear make their unit fearless, as page 82 says.

Characters that are immune to fear pass no additional rules onto their unit, as page 100 says.

Sheerkhan
07-05-2006, 04:11
ok, guys, i am lost about something. if a unit is accompanied by a 'fear' causing character, does an opposing unit have to test for 'fear' when charging or charged by them?

is it possible to rank up so as to miss the 'fear' character?

Ganymede
07-05-2006, 04:38
If the charge would result in the fear causing model not being in base to base contact, then no fear test is necessary.

GranFarfar
07-05-2006, 07:38
"[These rules] also apply to a unit that is accompanied by fear-causing creatures: A unit of skinks accompanied by a kroxigor, for example, would be immune to fear."

Ergo, a unit accompanied by a fear-causing character is immune to fear, if we accept that a character is a "creature". For the sake of sanity, since "creature" is not a technical term anywhere in the book, I think we must.

[...]

Characters that cause fear make their unit fearless, as page 82 says.



What conserns me with this, is that I am not sure this is how the rules are to be interpreted. Isnīt the book merely refering to unit such as the salamander hunting packs?
We have never played it the way you suggest, but I must admit that I do get a bit unsure if we have been doing it right.

I am simply having a hard time to accept that a character causing fear would boost a unit in such a way.

Festus
07-05-2006, 09:05
Hi

On the other hand, it is specifically mentioned on page 100 that a character does not confer immunity to fear onto a unit he joins.

:cool:
Greetings
Festus

Sheerkhan
07-05-2006, 09:15
Hi


:cool:
Greetings
Festus

yes, but i am not talking about immunity to fear, i am talking about fear-causing.

i got this answer on another website:

An enemy unit that wishes to charge a herd w/ a nurgle char in it (ie a unit with a single fear causing model) must take a fear check as normal, if they fail they cannot charge the unit.

If you charge the enemy, they have to take a fear check, but if they fail, they still hit the herd normally, only the character has to be hit on 6's.

A herd that is beaten by a fear causing opponent with a higher unit strength still autobreaks even if it has a char with fear in it.

if you beat an enemy unit with a US greater than 1, it does not autobreak.

Even if they avoid the fear causing character (mind you this is impossible with a herd that isnt ranked up, since you get to place the character anywhere you want in the front rank) they still have to take a fear check to charge you.

http://s2.invisionfree.com/herdstone/index.php?showtopic=6411

Festus
07-05-2006, 10:17
An enemy unit that wishes to charge a herd w/ a nurgle char in it (ie a unit with a single fear causing model) must take a fear check as normal, if they fail they cannot charge the unit.

Hi correct, as long as the charge will result in contacting the fear causing creature. If you won't have to face it, you won't have to take a fear test.


If you charge the enemy, they have to take a fear check, but if they fail, they still hit the herd normally, only the character has to be hit on 6's.
It is correct that they have to take a fear check (if not immune to fear/psy), but who has to hit on 6's is highly debated, as the rule is written badly. I'd agree with your interpretation, though.


A herd that is beaten by a fear causing opponent with a higher unit strength still autobreaks even if it has a char with fear in it.
Agreed, although debatable.


if you beat an enemy unit with a US greater than 1, it does not autobreak.
It will never autobreak if the Nurgle char has US1 (you will have to be *outnumbered* to autobreak!).

Even if they avoid the fear causing character (mind you this is impossible with a herd that isnt ranked up, since you get to place the character anywhere you want in the front rank) they still have to take a fear check to charge you.
Negative: see above.

Greetings
Festus

T10
07-05-2006, 13:12
The Nurgle character in the Baest Herd can become a bit awkward.

Let's assume that you are in a position to charge the Beast Herd from two opposite sides. The unit that enages the target first (being earliest of the two in the charge sequence) will be engaging the Fear causing model. The second unit will engage to the herd's rear. That's assuming the first unit's Fear test is passed.

However, if it is failed, then the second unit will need to engage the Fear-causing model. Obviously, this calls for another Fear test, but in a sense it invalidates the need to take the first test at all.

However, at the risk that the charging player may feel a bit cheated, it's not really a problem.

-T10

Sheerkhan
07-05-2006, 17:52
what about the idea of trying to bring as many models into b2b contact as possible? isn't it against the spirit of the rules to charge in such a way as to avoid a character in a unit? wouldn't one, by rule interpretation, always shimmy units a little to get maximum b2b? see pg 266 of rulebook.

i know you can avoid the fear-causing character with a flank charge, but then when he shofted over, you would have to test next turn. but in a frontal charge, i think not getting maximum b2b is cheesy and not following the rules.

mageith
07-05-2006, 18:04
Ergo, a unit accompanied by a fear-causing character is immune to fear, if we accept that a character is a "creature". For the sake of sanity, since "creature" is not a technical term anywhere in the book, I think we must.

This is the crux of the argument. However it contradicts the rule that characters do not pass on any benefits except as specifically noted.

So at most we have a contradiction. D6. However...

The reason characters don't pass on their characteristics and special abilities is for game balance. As someone has noted, placing a fear or terror item on a character and gaining fear or terror immunity for a whole unit is cheap way to gain a big bonus. It's an unfair combination.

The other reason is "idiom". English speakers just don't refer to humans (or in the case of WFB sentient humanoids") as 'creatures'. Of course, this is the weakest argument and the reason I placed it last.

Mage Ith

Sheerkhan
07-05-2006, 18:47
This is the crux of the argument. However it contradicts the rule that characters do not pass on any benefits except as specifically noted.

So at most we have a contradiction. D6. However...

The reason characters don't pass on their characteristics and special abilities is for game balance. As someone has noted, placing a fear or terror item on a character and gaining fear or terror immunity for a whole unit is cheap way to gain a big bonus. It's an unfair combination.

The other reason is "idiom". English speakers just don't refer to humans (or in the case of WFB sentient humanoids") as 'creatures'. Of course, this is the weakest argument and the reason I placed it last.

Mage Ith


where is it specifically stated that characters do not pass on ANY benefits?

if it is possible, it would not be the first instance of rules manipulation.

GW often says to use common sense in instances with blurry rules.

if a nurgle warrior was in the front rank of a beast herd i was charging, i know my eyes would be glued to the monstrosity. i would be afraid to go near it, regardless of how i felt about charging the herd itself.

Festus
07-05-2006, 19:06
Hi

if a nurgle warrior was in the front rank of a beast herd i was charging, i know my eyes would be glued to the monstrosity. i would be afraid to go near it, regardless of how i felt about charging the herd itself.
Oh please, do not even start to consider what you would and would not do in any situation existing on the Warhammer tabletop...

..different players may feel differently, so we will have different rules.

The point is, that most indices inherent within the rules point to the *character does not make the unit benefitting form his psy-rules if it is not openly stated*-interpretation.

If you have the aforementioned herd, you will have to take a fear test to charge it, as you will encounter a fear causing opponent. No problem here.

The question is, if the Herd can easily face off a charge from Trolls (which cause fear) because a Nurgle character has joined it. I say no!
The Nurgle character will not pass on its immunity, as the rules tell us not to.

The *creature bit* is for Trolls led by an Orc, or Kroxis in Skinks (not possible anymore, or is it?) or Cold One Knights riding fearsome creatures, Rathandlers leading Ratogres...

Festus

mageith
07-05-2006, 19:16
where is it specifically stated that characters do not pass on ANY benefits?

Except as noted.

INDEPENDENT CHARACTERS AND UNIT PSYCHOLOGY: "While a character is with a unit of troops he is considered to be part of that unit in all respects."
The above is the general rule for psychological benefits. Exceptions and Implications are immediately noted on page 100.

A character does not pass on his Mv, Init, WS, etc. or any special rules except as noted. We can only do what the rules say we can do and so unless some rule allows some passing on (as does Ld), then we cannot (or we have a contradiction).



if it is possible, it would not be the first instance of rules manipulation.

You are correct. There are lots of exceptions.



GW often says to use common sense in instances with blurry rules.

It does? I think it says to come to an agreement (43) or use a D6.



if a nurgle warrior was in the front rank of a beast herd i was charging, i know my eyes would be glued to the monstrosity. i would be afraid to go near it, regardless of how i felt about charging the herd itself.
This is the place where the line is drawn. Is a Nurgle Warrior a monstrosity? Isn't he on the same base size as the herd member?

Besides if you are charging the herd, then the fear factor only takes effect as long as you are charging the Nurgle warrior him(its)self.

I think the question is when your fear causing unit is charging the mixed herd and whether the Nurgle warrior's fearsome visage is enough to encourage the herd to hold no matter what or whether the herd takes a fear test.

Sheerkhan
07-05-2006, 19:37
Hi

Oh please, do not even start to consider what you would and would not do in any situation existing on the Warhammer tabletop...

..different players may feel differently, so we will have different rules.

ohh, sorry to offend your sensibilities. but i was just interpreting the rules according to my opinion. which is just as valid as yours.

i don't see how what i said contradicts with what the rules say about using common sense. unless your common sense is worth more than mine.

Sheerkhan
07-05-2006, 19:44
Except as noted.

INDEPENDENT CHARACTERS AND UNIT PSYCHOLOGY: "While a character is with a unit of troops he is considered to be part of that unit in all respects."
The above is the general rule for psychological benefits. Exceptions and Implications are immediately noted on page 100.

A character does not pass on his Mv, Init, WS, etc. or any special rules except as noted. We can only do what the rules say we can do and so unless some rule allows some passing on (as does Ld), then we cannot (or we have a contradiction).

it is not true that we can only do as the rules say we do. we are free to interpret special circumstances according to our common sense or a D6 roll.


This is the place where the line is drawn. Is a Nurgle Warrior a monstrosity? Isn't he on the same base size as the herd member?

base sizes don't really matter here. he causes fear at his base size on his own.


Besides if you are charging the herd, then the fear factor only takes effect as long as you are charging the Nurgle warrior him(its)self.

if you are not flank or rear charging, and the way is clear, how can you justify not coming into contact with a model in the center of the front rank? it seems kind of cheesy to angle your unit so as to avoid a char. besides, i think it goes against the spirit of the rules on page 266. i'd say 90% of the time, you would be kind of cheesing it to line up a charge so as to avoid the character.

Festus
07-05-2006, 19:48
Hi

ohh, sorry to offend your sensibilities. but i was just interpreting the rules according to my opinion. which is just as valid as yours.

i don't see how what i said contradicts with what the rules say about using common sense. unless your common sense is worth more than mine.

Common Sense =! What would I do in an imagined situation in a fantasy world depicted during my game with toys... :eyebrows:

Common Sense = What can the rule mean if it is not written *beyond the shadow of a doubt*

It has got nothing to do with worth or unworth of opinions, it is simply about a system of rules. Bringing any *realism* to the *game of fantasy battles* will only rarely improve the discussion, I am afraid. And it is counterproductive here, where there can be as many rules interpretations as there are players.

The rules state that characters become part of the unit in all respects.

Is the unit immune to fear? No.
Does the unit cause fear? No.
Is there any reason to think that the unit is either/or? No!
Is there any reason to think that it does neither/nor? Yes: p.100.

Easy, if you ask me...

Festus

mageith
07-05-2006, 19:49
it is not true that we can only do as the rules say we do. we are free to interpret special circumstances according to our common sense or a D6 roll.

Egads! An unbeliever! Of course you can interpret anything anyway you want. You just can't impose it on someone else.



base sizes don't really matter here. he causes fear at his base size on his own.

You used the term 'monstrosity'.




if you are not flank or rear charging, and the way is clear, how can you justify not coming into contact with a model in the center of the front rank?
Unfortunately it's possible under the current rules. Personally I hate it, but it's possible.



it seems kind of cheesy to angle your unit so as to avoid a char. besides, i think it goes against the spirit of the rules on page 266. i'd say 90% of the time, you would be kind of cheesing it to line up a charge so as to avoid the character.
No argument from me on the cheese factor.

mageith
07-05-2006, 19:56
unless your common sense is worth more than mine.
True. Both are equally invalid when interpreting rules.

Sheerkhan
07-05-2006, 21:24
Hi


Common Sense =! What would I do in an imagined situation in a fantasy world depicted during my game with toys... :eyebrows:

well, you seem pretty full of yourself. don't impress me, though.

you know who does? General of Chaos over on the herstone forum. he is a high-ranked player in the tournies. let's see what he says...

http://s2.invisionfree.com/herdstone/index.php?showtopic=6411

Sheerkhan
07-05-2006, 21:26
True. Both are equally invalid when interpreting rules.
HAHAHA! it's funny because it's true.

Sheerkhan
07-05-2006, 21:31
Egads! An unbeliever! Of course you can interpret anything anyway you want. You just can't impose it on someone else.

what i am saying is when there are blurry areas in the rules, like here, you try and figure out what is right and come to a consensus. if not, D6.



You used the term 'monstrosity'.

yes, i was writing fluffy, as if i was confronting a mutated character, to me the word mosntrosity would apply, regardless of size.




Unfortunately it's possible under the current rules. Personally I hate it, but it's possible.

yes, it does happen, and can be the case, but i think pg 266 makes it clear you must try and bring as many bases in b2b as possible, even if that means shifting over a unit a little. in my mind, that means a character in the middle of the front rank will mostly be in b2b with a frontal charging unit with a clear path. unless you come in from an angle or a side, i would assume pg. 266 means shifting a unit over to get full b2b.

T10
07-05-2006, 21:41
Thus, page 100 is not relevant, since it deals with characters who are immune to fear, not characters that cause fear.


I agree.

That a model gains Immunity to Fear through causing Fear is something of an over-simplification. Since the model will still need to take Fear tests due to Terror causing models, the model is not really immune.

-T10

Ganymede
08-05-2006, 01:03
So essentially, the entire debate revolves around how someone interprets the term creature?

Plainly, the presence of a kroxigor in a unit of skinks would make the skinks immune to fear... wouldn't the same effect occur if said kroxigor was Nanaki, the krox special character, and not a normal kroxigor?

Plainly, the presence of throtlings accompanied by packmasters makes the packmasters immune to fear... wouldn't the same effect occur if there was a throtling character choice?

Plainly, the presence of a bull rhinox in a unitof normal rhinox riders makes the unit immune to terror... wouldn't the same effect occur if it was a lord level ogre that was projecting the terror?

MarcoPollo
08-05-2006, 01:09
I agree too. But I think it is important that this issue is clarified and agree upon by your gaming group. Tournaments should also indicate how this rule is interpreted before hand.

Accepting that a fear causing character will pass its help in taking fear tests significantly impacts the effectiveness of a few armies.

It adversely affects Ogre Kingdoms TK and VC. No longer is autobreak a given tactic.

It significantly improves the effects of nurgle armies and characters.

Both these effects need to be thought through carefully amongst your group. And new commers should be made aware of the decisions.

Perhaps, GW will be able to spell this out for us in a White Dwarf atleast. Is there any evidence in a battle report of a decision made based upon an interpretation of this rule? (I know that from reading some of these battle reports in there, they break some rules anyways). This can atleast strengthen one opinion over another.

Sheerkhan
08-05-2006, 01:35
i am asking around for tourny rulings.

Festus
08-05-2006, 06:30
Hi

i am asking around for tourny rulings.
Although this can be helpful, it can indeed turn out to be bad as well.

Many tourny organisers rely on the DIrewolf (including all its obvious mistakes), and some don't even bother with giving rules guidelines but let the refs make up the decisions on the spot.:eek:

I even saw a tourny (and played in), where the refs were adamant that a fast cav unit wasn't allowed to shoot after a move including any *free* reforms, as the *reform* disallows shooting. :cries:

Well, each to his own priotities, I guess...

Sheerkhan- You have a PM...since yesterday

Festus

Sheerkhan
08-05-2006, 07:01
i also have experienced rulings at tournys which i know are wrong. since i wasn't playing, i kept my mouth shut.

i honestly don't know what the correct interpretation is, but a D6 roll just doesn't cut it for me.

T10
08-05-2006, 07:44
So essentially, the entire debate revolves around how someone interprets the term creature?


Yep, that's pretty much it.

Also, there really isn't any problem with the rule itself. For units that are a natural mix of non-Fear- and Fear-causing models it is very appropriate.

However, the artificial mix can come across as abusive, prompting some awkwardly arbitrary statement that "it don't apply to characters, like, 'cuz characters aint creatures, see?".

-T10

Sheerkhan
08-05-2006, 08:18
I even saw a tourny (and played in), where the refs were adamant that a fast cav unit wasn't allowed to shoot after a move including any *free* reforms, as the *reform* disallows shooting.

off topic, but pg 117 in the rulebook clearly (for once) states that reforming does NOT take away a fast cav unit's ability to shoot.

Aeschylus
09-05-2006, 05:01
This is the crux of the argument. However it contradicts the rule that characters do not pass on any benefits except as specifically noted.

So at most we have a contradiction.



No we do not.

"A character becomes part of a unit until he leaves it" (p. 95)

As I previously stated, the unit becomes immune to fear because it has a fear-causing model in it. When the character joins the unit, he becomes part of it (above). Now the unit has a fear-causing model in it. Therefore, the rules for *units* dictate that the unit is immune to fear. There is NO passing on of benefits here; this is just the rules for how units work kicking in.

Also, while I concede that this does hang on the definition of "creature", since no definition is given, we must go with the most generic definition possible: "model". To do otherwise is utter insanity since there is there is nothing to suggest an alternative.

And lastly, Mageith, about your arguments founded in game balance and linguistics: We are conducting a legal debate here, not a philosophy class. Please do not bring that shiz-nit into my humpity-bumpity.

Festus
09-05-2006, 06:49
Hi

And lastly, Mageith, about your arguments founded in game balance and linguistics: We are conducting a legal debate here, not a philosophy class. Please do not bring that shiz-nit into my humpity-bumpity.
I think you are very much mistaken: we are discussing some rules some guy made up some years ago, with no importance whatsoever, and neither a *philosophy class* nor a *legal debate* :rolleyes:

If the rules tell us that *Immunity against Fear* is not passed on the the unit, and that a character will not generally pass on any benefits to the unit he joined except where noted, how can one still think that the unit now *causes fear*?
What if I charge said unit from the flank or back? I will not have to take a fear test. How can one make this correlate with the unit allegedly *causing fear*?

Festus

Sheerkhan
09-05-2006, 09:24
no one is saying that the unit causes fear. in fact, by acknowledging that a rear or flank charge does not check for fear, we are admitting it is only when the fear causing character is charged that a fear check must be taken.

that makes it obvious to me that when a unit with a fear causing character in the front rank charges another unit, the target must take a fear test as normal. unless by some fluke the charging player does not want the fear-causer in a position to get into b2b.

according to the rulebook, page 255-256, all effort must be made to bring as many models as possible into combat. that means that barring a severely awkward charge, there are very few instances where a unit might charge another and avoid the fear causer, who will ususally be front and near the center.

also, about the "using common sense" thing, on page 266 the rules instruct one to use "common sense" when faced with an "unrealistic" situation.

seems to me they are advocating the use of common sense, and of visualizing the battle so you can figure out what a realistic situation would be. just what i was doing.

T10
09-05-2006, 09:49
I find the Fear/Terror liabities rule to be an acceptable exception to the rule that characters cannot confer immunity to psychology to the unit.

(In my opinion the unit assumes immunity to Fear rather than having it bestowed upon them.)

-T10

jcmwolf1
09-05-2006, 10:58
So, for all the people who say the fear causing character makes the unit cause fear, by your logic, would putting a frenzied character in the unit make the entire unit frenzied? From my recollection, it says that a frenzied character has to charge an enemy, even if it means they leave their unit, meaning that the unit wasn't frenzied, correct?

Ganymede
09-05-2006, 16:01
So, for all the people who say the fear causing character makes the unit cause fear... (snip)

Nobody is stating that at all.

Elannion
10-05-2006, 14:56
This is an interesting debate from game balance terms you would probably be tempted to interpret it as festus says and i would think it is also what they meant. However there is a good case against that.

On the creature bit:
On page 82 fear and terror liabilitys, this is the only referance to the fear causing 'creatures' rules we are discussing. If you don't read creatures as being all models in the game, then characters, other units and non-creature things that cause fear will have to take fear tests against those who cause fear, as it isn't stated anywhere else to my knowledge that characters don't have to take fear tests, it only states creatures, so we must read creatures as model. In this case creature is used as a collective term because orcs, humans, elves dwarves, rat things, lizard demons are all different creatures.

This rule also never states that they are immune to fear, infact fear causing creatures fear terror causing units as stated before, so technically they are not immune to fear. I should imagine pg 100 is for units that specifically say immune to fear or psychology or whatever.

Also there are inequitys, as stated earlier there are two levels of 'scaredness' fear and terror, all fear causing units cause fear to an equal amount, now 1 salamander in a lot of skinks makes them immune to fear, so if a character is causing fear as much as a salamander then surely if theres on of him it should be the same as one salamander for instance. Or to put it in another way if a character is in a small unit of ogres then the ratio of non fear to fear causing is similar yet the character is still immune to fear, this is proliferated further when the unit suffers casultys in the fear causing troops but the others still being immune to fear even if theres only 1 fear causing ogre left in the unit?

Pravus
10-05-2006, 15:46
See, I knew this wasn't as simple as it first looked. Not that it makes any difference in an absolute sense, but a quick straw poll of regular GT finalists at my club drew a roughly 50/50 split on this. Ironically the Nurgle general was in the 50% that thought a fear causing character wouldn't make a unit immune to fear causing enemies. When I pointed him to the reasoning that concludes that it does his exact words were:

"So that's why the Mark of Nurgle is so expensive"

Shimmergloom
10-05-2006, 19:17
As I previously stated, the unit becomes immune to fear because it has a fear-causing model in it. When the character joins the unit, he becomes part of it (above). Now the unit has a fear-causing model in it. Therefore, the rules for *units* dictate that the unit is immune to fear. There is NO passing on of benefits here; this is just the rules for how units work kicking in.

There is no room for debate here that I can see. pg 82 clearly says that sometimes you might face a unit lead by a hero/character or containing creatures that cause fear or terror and that you only test for fear/terror if you were to be charging the character itself. So that if you charged the flank, no fear or terror test is necessary.

So what does that say when you read between the lines?

1. That just because you have a fear causing character in the unit, that you do not cause fear. Otherwise fear tests would still be needed for flank or rear charges.

So that point in the debate is resolved.

Now we turn to page 100 and see that characters do not pass on their special abilities to a unit they are in. The example it gives is that if you are immune to psyche you do not make the unit you are in cheaply immune to psyche just by being in the unit.

So for all those saying that just because it doesn't pointedly say that putting a fear causer in the unit doesn't make the unit immune to fear. You're just playing semantics and trying to find a loophole.

pg. 100 clearly says the character does not pass off it's special abilities to the unit it's in. If not, then the unit would become immune to psyche just by having a character who's immune to psyche in it.

Otherwise to bring up the orc in a troll unit example. If a nurgle character passes immunity to fear into a herd unit, just cause he causes fear. Then an orc character in a troll unit, would pass immune to goblin panic along to the trolls.

Or a Savage orc in a goblin unit would make the goblins frenzy.

Or a black orc in a goblin unit would make the goblins immune to greenskin panic and let them quell animosity.

I'm sure there's dozens more examples like this among the different armies. So if you nurgle players want to play that your nurgle character makes you immune to fear, then don't be surprised to find your opponents throwing all number of loopholes back at you.

And you'd deserve it too.

Sheerkhan
11-05-2006, 00:42
the rules must be specific or they are open to interpretation. that is why we are debating here.

i think a balanced reading of all the rules shows this:

Any enemy unit (non-fear or terror) that wishes to charge a unit with a single fear causing model, and the fear causer is to be in b2b, must take a fear check as normal, if they fail and they cannot charge the unit.

If you charge the enemy, they have to take a fear check, but if they fail, they still hit the unit normally, only the character has to be hit on 6's.

A unit that is beaten by a fear causing opponent with a higher unit strength still autobreaks even if it has a char with fear in it.

if you beat an enemy unit with a US greater than the fear-causing model, it does not autobreak.

now may i also say, a frontal charge designed to avoid the character is not cricket. unless it is a severely awkward charge, the rules on pgs 263-266 make it clear an honest attempt must be made to bring as many models into b2b as possible. charging so as to avoid a character in the front rank and near the center, except in awkward charges, is not an honest attempt.

(thanks to daggoth for the interpretations found here!)

Duke Lionberg
12-05-2006, 13:01
I am with these who vote for characters making units immune to fear. And it has nothin to do with characters passing their special rules to units like some try to show it. It has nothing in common with frenzy or ignoring goblin-coused panic. The special rule of a character is to COUSE fear, and he is not passing it - unit is not cousing fear. The imunity to fear by fear-cousing models is under fear/terror liabilities and according to rule on p.82 is applied to unit by any creature it is part of it.
If you look at the costs of 2 Death Masks in game, one for Dark Elves costs 50 points, one for Tomb Kings costs 35... Effect of both on the enemy is identical - wearer couse terror... but all units in TK army are immune to psychology, so can not benefit from imunity to fear, given by the wearer to unit he is with, hence the price difference...

Avian
12-05-2006, 13:15
If you look at the costs of 2 Death Masks in game, one for Dark Elves costs 50 points, one for Tomb Kings costs 35... Effect of both on the enemy is identical
Nonsense, the Tomb King already causes Fear, so when the enemy has taken a Terror test the Mask gives him no special benefit, while the Dark Elf still benefits from enemies having to take Fear tests, something they would not otherwise have to do.

Shimmergloom
12-05-2006, 16:04
I am with these who vote for characters making units immune to fear. And it has nothin to do with characters passing their special rules to units like some try to show it. It has nothing in common with frenzy or ignoring goblin-coused panic. The special rule of a character is to COUSE fear, and he is not passing it - unit is not cousing fear. The imunity to fear by fear-cousing models is under fear/terror liabilities and according to rule on p.82 is applied to unit by any creature it is part of it.
If you look at the costs of 2 Death Masks in game, one for Dark Elves costs 50 points, one for Tomb Kings costs 35... Effect of both on the enemy is identical - wearer couse terror... but all units in TK army are immune to psychology, so can not benefit from imunity to fear, given by the wearer to unit he is with, hence the price difference...

If you can pass on the fact that you cause fear to make the unit immune to fear, then you can pass on the fact that you're immune to goblin panic or greenskin panic to make the unit of goblins your in immune.

Those are both special rules and there's nothing saying that you can pass on fear. It just says that creatures make the unit immune to fear or terror, not characters. It even says that you only test for fear or terror if you're going to actually hit the character. They don't call the mighty hero a creature. So you can by no means equate creatures and characters.

Elannion
12-05-2006, 20:42
If you can pass on the fact that you cause fear to make the unit immune to fear, then you can pass on the fact that you're immune to goblin panic or greenskin panic to make the unit of goblins your in immune.

Thats not the reasoning though the reasoning is that it states that you it does pass it on but its debatable what its talking about. Also we are not talking about immunity to fear we are talking about not suffering against fear causing units but suffering fear from terror causing units.


They don't call the mighty hero a creature.
You would call a skaven hero a creature though and you call ogres creatures even though now they are made out to be a playable race just like any other except maybe not as intelligent. The key thing for interpretting this term is looking at the next use of it as i said before, which if only meaning monsters would mean that fear causing heros and units still suffer from fear.

I don't think this is right atall, though i do think some people in this forum are quite unrelenting, i think that its wrong that they pass it on, but i think that people are stating a good point with their arguement and i don't think in these forums people show appreiciation or a aknowledgement of such things, just because they are probably wrong.

Ganymede
12-05-2006, 23:08
It is an undisputed fact that a dragon ogre shaggoth is a creature. Does it stop being a creature the moment you upgrade him to a Shaggoth Lord?

GranFarfar
14-05-2006, 06:46
Any enemy unit (non-fear or terror) that wishes to charge a unit with a single fear causing model, and the fear causer is to be in b2b, must take a fear check as normal, if they fail and they cannot charge the unit.


A question here. If you fail a fear check, donīt you still get to charge but hit on 6īs? And only canīt charge when the fear-causers outnumbers you? Otherwise my grop has been doing it wrong for a very long time.
Edit: Nevermind this part. Checked the BRB. We have indeed been doing it wrong for all these years.

On a side note. I am having troubles following wheter people are even close to reaching an agreement on this.

MarcoPollo
14-05-2006, 22:58
You won't get an agreement on this issue. You will have some who will agrue for and others against. Both sound resonable, both have points.

To remedy this issue, your group needs to come to a resolution on its own. If you are going to skirting around this tactic in a tournament, you should make it clear exactly how you interpret the rule and ask for rulings on the subject if there is any disputes before the game/tounament starts.

T10
16-05-2006, 11:50
Agreed. In a friendly setting, simply agree on a house rule.

In a tournament setting you should probably avoid making it an issue in the first place. If you do go for it, however, you should clear it with the organizer, ref or your opponent at the earliest opportunity.

Even if you think this is the sweetest gold-trophy tactic EVER, you should check that you have necessary support for it. Otherwise you'll probably get burned.

-T10