PDA

View Full Version : Salamanders + handlers?



Dead Man Walking
18-05-2007, 03:31
Do Skinks in a salamander unit count as handlers? According to the new rule on handlers they are treated as if they are not there if charged or charging, only the monsters count.

I will describe the problem that arose while playing my bret opponent.

I set my salamanders in a swamp and the skinks extended behind them by 9 inches or slightly less because I was trying to place them all in the swamp. I moved them out in a tight line so they were not too wide so that they would not be over run if my cold one charge went bad. Then they fired (killed one brit after 22 hits/12 wounds) and the next turn they moved 12 inches to get the salamanders (not the skinks who were trailing behind.) out of charge arc.

Now according to the rules about handlers only the monsters count for purposes of charging or being charged and to count the handlers as not being there (stops you from streching them 12 inches long, firing at the flank and then charging at something in the middle, snapping the salamanders to the other end of the unit for a 24 inch charge.).

That meant that he couldnt charge the skink handlers, but they also blocked his charge to kroxigors that were behind the skinks. While this wasnt my intention (as I wasnt thinking he would charge there.) another player was asked what he thought about it and he agreed that the skinks couldnt be charged and the charge on the kroxigors were blocked.

Then later after the game my opponent mentioned that they were not conscidered covered under the handlers rule because they are not handlers. I mentioned the rule in the lizardman book that states;

Controlled creature: Skink handlers guide the salamanders into combat. (then a new paragraph starts in on how to resolve shooting into the salamander unit 1-4 salamander, 5&6 skink.)

I mentioned that it specifically calls the skinks 'skink handlers' thus denoting them as handlers of monsters that have to roll on the monster reaction chart. Therefore they are handlers. We agreed that the handlers rules were abusive and they needed an errata.

I personally think they need to add a rule that states -all- skink handlers need to remain within 3 inches of the salamanders and the salamanders need to stay within one inch of each other.

So was I correct in applying the handler rules to them? This seems to be a conflict between the old edition army book and the new rules, as if they were not conscidered by GW when they added the rule about hanlders.

Ganymede
18-05-2007, 04:16
A salamander pack counts as a unit of skirmishers. They do not follow the rules for monsters and handlers.

As the packs always functioned as regular skirmishers in 6th edition, and do not contain a specific rule telling them to use the 7th edition monster and handler rules, I'd say it is reasonable that they will continue to count as regular skirmishers.

McMullet
18-05-2007, 10:41
Indeed - the rules for Monsters and Handlers in the new rulebook specifically refer to a Monster with Handlers - a unit of Salamanders can contain more than one Monster.

Atrahasis
18-05-2007, 10:45
A salamander pack counts as a unit of skirmishers. They do not follow the rules for monsters and handlers.Monsters and Handlers are skirmishers.

The problems with Monsters and Handlers in the OP are something I brought up last August when I first got the 7th ed book, unfortunately it was one of the things overlooked in the FAQ/Errata.

Dead Man Walking
18-05-2007, 13:10
So if I only buy one salamander then the rule applies? Its 'a' monster. That doesn't make sense. Until GW errata's it I will still field them as handlers.

Ganymede
18-05-2007, 17:00
Monsters and Handlers are skirmishers.

The problems with Monsters and Handlers in the OP are something I brought up last August when I first got the 7th ed book, unfortunately it was one of the things overlooked in the FAQ/Errata.

I'd say that Monsters and Handlers are a special subset of skirmishers, and salamanders do not necessarily qualify to be placed in this subset.

Jonke
18-05-2007, 17:23
The direwolf faq sums up how salamander hunting packs are aligned in combat. Unfortunetaly this makes them rather bad in combat, on the other hand it is not like sallies need a boost to become a viable choice...



Q. How are Salamander Hunting Packs aligned with the enemy in close
combat? Is the Lizardmen player allowed to move the Salamanders into
contact with the enemy models and push the Skink Handlers to the
rear?

A. Note that Salamander Hunting Packs do NOT have any special rules
which state that the Salamanders push to the front of the fighting
in close combat. Therefore Salamander Hunting Packs follow the same
close combat alignment rules as all other Skirmishing units. This
means that when a Salamander Hunting Pack charges an enemy unit it
must maximize the total number of models it can bring into base to
base contact with the enemy. This will generally result in the Skink
Handlers at the center of the fighting rank and a Salamander in
corner to corner contact with the enemy at each end of the fighting
rank.

Example ASCII Diagram

_CCCCC_
MsssssM

Legend
_=Open Ground
C=Cavalry
M=Salamander
s=Skink Handler

When a Salamander Hunting Pack is charged by an enemy unit,
the same principles apply with the exception that the enemy must
move into base to base contact with the closest skirmisher (Note
that a defending unit of Skirmishers must also maximize the models
moved into the combat). If the closest skirmisher is a Salamander, then
three Salamanders can generally be placed in the fighting rank.

Example ASCII Diagram

_CCCCC_
MssMssM

Legend
_=Open Ground
C=Cavalry
M=Salamander
s=Skink Handler

Peace!

Atrahasis
18-05-2007, 17:29
The strange way that they ranked up in 6th is the reason for the Monsters and Handlers rule, ie it prevents people insisting that skinks rank up in front for easy pickings.

However, its poorly thought out and results in the problems in the OP.

ZomboCom
18-05-2007, 20:26
There are a multiude of reasons that sallys do not follow the monster and handler rules.

For starters, they aren't monsters. US3, 40mm base, 3 wounds. They're Ogre Class skirmishing infantry.

Secondly, the M+H rules are written for a single monster, not multiple, and make no sense when applied to a unit with multiple "monsters". For example, which salamander would be used for line of sight?

Dead Man Walking
19-05-2007, 04:18
They are monsters in that they roll on the 'Monster reaction chart'. Otherwise they would roll on the Ogre class skirmishing infantry chart. :eek:

Direwold faq means as much as a bucket of lead in a swimming contest in my gaming league, if its not an official document from GW (Faq) you have to go by the in print text according to the rules. Thus the units rules denotes them as skink handlers and they follow the rules on handlers. We dont make houserules either as you cant expect outsiders to adhere to your house rules and our intentions are to make outsiders members.

Ganymede
19-05-2007, 06:34
Dead Man Walking, let us indulge in your viewpoint and completely toss out any bearing the rules actually have on the situation.

No matter what the rules say, the standard convention in North America, the UK, and Australia is that salamanders are treated as regular, run-of-the-mill skirmishers. Conversely, you and your gaming group are allowed to do anything you want, and that includes comming up with a convoluted and unsupported method to determine a charged sally pack's facing.

Dead Man Walking
20-05-2007, 00:35
Whats so convoluted about 'It must be in print, we don't do interpreted house rules.' ?

theunwantedbeing
20-05-2007, 00:51
Lets see what the rulebook says.
"monsters & handlers" page 67

Well the rulebook seems to indicate that a unit of skirmishers made up of a monster and halndlers you just count the monster for purposes of charging and line of sight.
It does state monster as in the singular though.

Now for the lizardmen armybook.
Salamanders,page 28 & 29

Controlled
"skink handlers guide the salamander into combat"

Hmmm...that looks suspiciously like its saying you follow the rules for monsters and handlers......

Lets have a look at the armylist.
Page 64.

"Salamander hunting packs(each hunting pack consists on one salamander and 3 handlers)"

Hmmm....seems to me the singular thing isnt a problem.As they are just one Salamander with some handlers.....

So they would follow the rules for a monster and handler,seeing as they are a monster and handler.

Ganymede
20-05-2007, 05:04
The Monster and Handlers rules did not exist at the time the Salamander rules were made.

The bottom line remains, the monster and handler rules do not work with salamanders. Those rules tell us to determine the charge zone of a pack by using the base of the monster. As there are more than one salamander in the unit, it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine the propper charge zone of the salamander unit when using the monster+handlers rules.

As a guideline, do not interpret the rules in such a way that they result in it being impossible to continue the game. When the salamanders are treated as regular skirmishers, no rules paradox occurs. Additionally, when we play them as skirmishers, we are playing them in exactly the same way we have been in the four years since the lizard book was released.

Dead Man Walking
20-05-2007, 18:01
The problem is Ganymede you have to go by the written rules, not that which makes the game flow easier. For every guy you have playing by your rules you have another guy playing by my rules. You can't have that happening in a competitive gaming atmosphere like a tournament or a wins count league. You have to go by what the text says, black and white no shades of grey in between.

It does not say you cant be skirmish and a handler/monster. It does not say that it is not a monster, it says it rolls on the monster reaction chart if its handlers are dead. Thus it is a monster and they are handlers. a unit of 3 is 3 packs, each pack consists of 3 skinks and a salamander. However they form a group.

I dont see how figuring out its facing is a problem. If it is facing its target it can shoot it. If one of the monsters can see the target the unit can charge it. (No different than a fast cav unit where only the last model can see woods obstructing view from the other 4. The whole unit still charges.) I have never had a problem with this because my salamanders are all facing thier targets when I move.

Festus
20-05-2007, 18:15
The problem is that you guys do not read the rules...

The handlers are ignored for purposes of LoS of the Monster's unit's own charges and for the frontage/arc the enemy charges from.

They are not ignored for LoS of an enemy unit wishing to charge the Monster/Handler unit. If you can see one Handler, you may charge the unit of Monster and handler, using the Arc of the Monster you start in, not the Handlers arc.

cf. BRB, p.67

The OP should have had the Brets charging the Sallies unit, as the Skinks were visible.

Festus

Atrahasis
20-05-2007, 19:07
Festus, unless the German book is very different from the English, then you are wrong.


When charging or being charged through, the handlers are coimpletely ignored (as if they were not there). and the monster is the only model that matters.If they are not there, they cannot be seen.

Festus
20-05-2007, 19:14
The next sentence is the interesting one: The German book has it very explicitly that this restriction regarding LoS is only for the Units own charges, not for charges against the unit. The frontage to be charged is still dependant on the Monster, but this is of no concern, as a skirmishing unit has no frontage before it is not in close combat.

Could you please quote this as well? Thank you.

Festus

Atrahasis
20-05-2007, 19:20
Certainly:


The monster's arc of sight and flank/rear are used to determine arc of sight for charges and the relative position of a charging enemy, as well as any charge distance, psychological reaction and so on.

The first sentence tells us the handlers essentially do not exist for the purpose of charges. The next clarifies this but does not limit the artificial absence of the handlers. The "and so on" is usual unhelpful GW generalisation.

Festus
20-05-2007, 19:26
Funny indeed.

Thank you.

The German version explicitly spells out: *für eigene Angriffe* (the unit's own charges). So in German, it is like that:


The monster's arc of sight and flank/rear are used to determine arc of sight for the unit's own charges and the relative position of a charging enemy, as well as any charge distance, psychological reaction and so on.

It makes much more sense this way, too, as those awkward situations described in the OP cannot happen anymore...

Festus

edit: PS I see that in the English Rulebook, the restriciton is only placed on Charging itself and being charged through. There is no restriction for simply being charged, or is there?

Atrahasis
20-05-2007, 19:36
The first thought I had upon reading that section of rules was this:

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/7526/handlerspu1.png

Which effectively immobilises the red unit.

I was then reminded by my long-suffering rules discussion partner that I had promised to use my powers for good.

Festus
20-05-2007, 19:42
It won't immobilise the unit if it declared a charge, though, as then the Skink will be ignored.

And it really does not matter who to declare the charge against - even against the Sally unit, as the Skink is still visible at the start of turn, according to the rules. Only in the charge itself does it disappear magically by virtue of the badly written rule.

I say the German Rulebook definitely makes more sense. :D

Festus

DeathlessDraich
20-05-2007, 19:59
The perennial problem.
Sallies just can't wait!:D


I'd say that Monsters and Handlers are a special subset of skirmishers, and salamanders do not necessarily qualify to be placed in this subset.

Yes.


Thus the units rules denotes them as skink handlers and they follow the rules on handlers. We dont make houserules either as you cant expect outsiders to adhere to your house rules and our intentions are to make outsiders members.

There are no rules for handlers alone but rules for Monsters and handlers.
In the same way that rules for crew alone should not necessarily be extended to the whole Warmachine. More below. **


No matter what the rules say, the standard convention in North America, the UK, and Australia is that salamanders are treated as regular, run-of-the-mill skirmishers.

This certainly would simplify matters and there is 'historical' support for it.:p **



Well the rulebook seems to indicate that a unit of skirmishers made up of a monster and halndlers you just count the monster for purposes of charging and line of sight.
.

Arc of sight not LOS is the phrase used, as Festus pointed out. Reading the rules in context the term that should have been used is 'frontal or flank zone' to make the rules consistent with the rest of the book

It is an indication that whoever wrote the Monster and Handlers rules did not give it much thought.



Controlled
"skink handlers guide the salamander into combat"

"Salamander hunting packs(each hunting pack consists on one salamander and 3 handlers)"

So they would follow the rules for a monster and handler,seeing as they are a monster and handler.

To indisputably follow the rules for Monster and handlers the phrase 'follows the rules for Monsters and handlers' should have been present.
or at least 'counts as Monster and handlers'.
This would lead to disastrous convolutions in game play as Ganymede mentioned.

I understand though that the writers for the LM book would have to go through a time warp to include this.

However this problem has been addressed officially twice.**




The handlers are ignored for purposes of ...the frontage/arc the enemy charges from.

They are not ignored for LoS of an enemy unit wishing to charge the Monster/Handler unit. If you can see one Handler, you may charge the unit of Monster and handler, using the Arc of the Monster you start in, not the Handlers arc.
Festus

This is the same in the English version, mein freunde (as they say in Sexony, correct?) :p
However I'm not sure whether this complication is even needed **

**
Chronicles 2003. Monsters and handlers
"mixed units of monsters and handlers (Lizardmen Salamnders and DE War hydras)" followed by
"do not count as skirmishers though models do not rank up" ??
and
"When determining what the unit can charge or for the purposes of flank and rear enemy charges, use the 90 degree arcs centred on the monster"

This is very similar to the Monsters and handlers rules and led to a disaster naturally. With 3 Salamanders, which should you choose??

Chronicles 2004. Monsters and Handlers
"mixed units of monsters and handlers (DE War hydras)"

The rules were changed!
Suddenly Salamanders were dropped from this rule and they functioned as normal skirmishers.

Yes, I know Chronicles might be regarded as obsolete but as far as I'm concerned I think having the Monster/handler rule, in Chronicles, dropped for Salamanders is very significant.

I've always played Sallies as normal skirmishers and pushed the skinks into the battle line when necessary. It certainly makes it easier for both sides.

Sanjuro
20-05-2007, 20:51
I say the German Rulebook definitely makes more sense. :D

Festus

Why am I not surprised? After all, isn't it precisely that organisation and discipline that defines Germany as a nation? ;)

Dead Man Walking
20-05-2007, 23:25
The book also says 'Skink handlers follow the rules for skinks'. in the rare section, so that to me spells out that they are handlers and not just skinks, otherwise they would not of made that specific rule.

Ganymede
21-05-2007, 01:11
I dont see how figuring out its facing is a problem. If it is facing its target it can shoot it. If one of the monsters can see the target the unit can charge it. (No different than a fast cav unit where only the last model can see woods obstructing view from the other 4. The whole unit still charges.) I have never had a problem with this because my salamanders are all facing thier targets when I move.

I am referring to the situation when the salamander packs are charged, not when they are doing the charging. When using the Monster and Handler rules with a unit of salamanders, a potential charger could be in three different charge zones. He could potentially be a flank, frontal, and rear charger all at the same time. As there are absolutely no rules which guide us in this situation, we would be incorrect in saying that salamanders followed the disputed rules.

No matter how much you think the salamander's rules allude to then using the Monsters with Handlers rules (the authors, of course, alluding to a rule that wouldn't be written until four years in the future), there is no way to apply those rules to the salamanders without some entering some black hole in the rulebook.

IvorTangrean
21-05-2007, 01:31
Here is my two bits:

In the BRB on page 265 in the Lizardmen Basic Characteristics section the last entry is for Skink Handler. The rule book calls them handlers not just the army book.

Also this is asking a lot of people but if you don't try and break them they function fine as handlers. Keep them in a 'cloud' formation and face the target you are shooting at and what do you know there is no funny situations.

Ganymede
21-05-2007, 02:51
Here is my two bits:

In the BRB on page 265 in the Lizardmen Basic Characteristics section the last entry is for Skink Handler. The rule book calls them handlers not just the army book.

Also this is asking a lot of people but if you don't try and break them they function fine as handlers. Keep them in a 'cloud' formation and face the target you are shooting at and what do you know there is no funny situations.

The simple situation of having a charger diagonally away from the common facing of the salamanders is enough to create the paradoxical situation. You can't avoid that situation.

Talonz
21-05-2007, 10:10
I find it interesting that the lizardman AB specefies that a Stegadon is a ridden monster, but doesn't specify that salamanders are monsters.

Typically, all monsters as per the examples given in the brb are greater than 3 wounds indvidual models or 2+wound ridden mount models only.

Both of which salamanders are not. Problem solved. Use the monster/handler rule for actual monsters with handlers, like the hydra. Use the skirmisher rules for the salamander packs.

Atrahasis
21-05-2007, 14:18
The simple situation of having a charger diagonally away from the common facing of the salamanders is enough to create the paradoxical situation. You can't avoid that situation.

Monsters and Handlers are a special case of skirmishers. Nothing lifts the restriction that units must charge the closest skirmisher (in this case the closest monster).

Ganymede
21-05-2007, 16:25
Monsters and Handlers are a special case of skirmishers. Nothing lifts the restriction that units must charge the closest skirmisher (in this case the closest monster).

You missed the context of my message. I was referring to this placement resulting in being in multiple charge zones, I wasn't referring to the stipulation foring a charger to charge the closest model.. You can charge the closest skirmisher, but you won't know on what face to pivot as you could legally have the majority of your models in both the front and flank zones.

Festus
21-05-2007, 16:34
Hi

No, you cannot. When you charge a skirmishing unit, it does not have any zone yet...

... and if it already is in combat, it is the same problem with ranked units: You choose the frontage the most of the charging models originate from.

Festus

Ganymede
21-05-2007, 16:41
Hi

No, you cannot. When you charge a skirmishing unit, it does not have any zone yet...

... and if it already is in combat, it is the same problem with ranked units: You choose the frontage the most of the charging models originate from.

Festus

You're missing the context of my message. I am playing devil's advocate and assuming that the skirmishers use the monsters and handlers rules for ranking up. When using those rules, the monster projects front, flank, and rear zones despite the fact that it is a skirmishing unit. Since there are more than one salamander in most units, most of these units project multiple zones at once.

By pointing such out, I was trying to show that it was senseless to use the monsters and handler rules with the salamander unit.

Atrahasis
21-05-2007, 16:51
And you're missing the implications of my post :)

If you are charging the closest monster, then you use that monster's facing to determine arc.

Festus
21-05-2007, 17:28
You're missing the context of my message. I am playing devil's advocate and assuming that the skirmishers use the monsters and handlers rules for ranking up. When using those rules, the monster projects front, flank, and rear zones despite the fact that it is a skirmishing unit. Since there are more than one salamander in most units, most of these units project multiple zones at once.

By pointing such out, I was trying to show that it was senseless to use the monsters and handler rules with the salamander unit.

The Salamanders are by Armybook definition Skirmishers, are they not? Skirmishers do not posess a facing as long as they are not in Combat themselves. Regardless of US of the individual models in the Skirmishing unit.

It is only charactrs that are restricted that they may only join Skirmishing units if US1.

A Sally has no facing as long as it is not engaged if it is a Skirmisher.

cf. BRB, p.65 ff

Festus

Atrahasis
21-05-2007, 17:54
Monsters and Handlers are special cases of Skirmishers, indicated by the fact that they are a subheading under the main heading of Skirmishers, just as units of flyers are a special case of flyers indicated in the same manner.

Why would you apply the skirmish rules and not the rules specifically for Monsters and Handlers?

Talonz
21-05-2007, 17:55
And you're missing the implications of my post :)

If you are charging the closest monster, then you use that monster's facing to determine arc.


Sure, except salamanders aren't 'monsters'. Just freakish skirmishing infantry.

Atrahasis
21-05-2007, 17:59
They are monsters as outlined under monsters and handlers.

Festus
21-05-2007, 18:41
That is what you say, isn't it?

The rules have them as Skirmishers, and they do not follow the rules for Monsters, most notably: Monsters always fight as units of their own...

They are Skirmishers, nothing more, nothing less, with a US of 3 and a 40mm base, just like Ogre skirmishers were - if there were any :)

Festus

Atrahasis
21-05-2007, 18:42
The rules have them as Skirmishers, and they do not follow the rules for Monsters, most notably: Monsters always fight as units of their own...By that logic M&Hs can never exist, therefore I abandon it as flawed.


They are Skirmishers, nothing more, nothing less, with a US of 3 and a 40mm base, just like Ogre skirmishers were - if there were any :)

I suppose Pegasi are ogre-sized infantry now?

Festus
21-05-2007, 19:11
No, Pegasi are flying Monsters - usually ridden.

The key term is: What constitutes a Monster? Prove that Salamanders are Monsters and I will put up with this whole Monsters/Handlers stuff, which is problematic with multiple *monsters* in the unit (as opposed to the Hydra for example).

If you cannnot prove this, the easy way out -and still within the rules- is to have Sallies as Ogre sized Infantry...

... and voila: No problem anymore...

Festus

DeathlessDraich
21-05-2007, 19:23
Salamanders are Monsters in some respects - they take Monster reaction tests but are not Monster and handlers in other respects.

There is no reason why they should be pigeon-holed into a specific category when they are quite clearly an exception to certain rules. Must they be classified as Monster or non-Monster?

Isn't it logical to just stick to the Lizardmen rules and use just these rules to determine how Salamanders behave.

I am quite certain that a future FAQ will not categorise them as Monster and Handlers because they have gone down this road before with disastrous consequences - Chronicles 2003.

We've had this discussion so many times with the same arguments. Wouldn't it be best to interpret the rules so that they may operate smoothly as a whole instead of ending up being self contradictory?

Festus
21-05-2007, 19:29
Wouldn't it be best to interpret the rules so that they may operate smoothly as a whole instead of ending up being self contradictory?
Quoted for truth!

If you just have them as regular Skirmishers, you cannot go far wrong IMNSHO.

Festus

Atrahasis
21-05-2007, 19:55
Treat them as M&Hs doesn't give any problems either, and uses all of the rules and not just some.

DeathlessDraich
21-05-2007, 20:04
Atrahasis' Ld is still unmodified by CR (consensual realism):p

Atrahasis
21-05-2007, 20:15
Tell me one problem with Salamanders specifically arising from the M&H rules and I'll concede the point :)

Ganymede
21-05-2007, 23:47
Don't fall for it. He's just trying to get you to repeat yourself. He knows damn well that such a problem, the one dealing with multiple charge facings, was alreadt mentioned several times in this thread.

Atrahasis
21-05-2007, 23:51
That's not a problem - you have to charge the nearest eligible model in a skirmishing unit, so the monster that is closest determines the facing.

Ganymede
22-05-2007, 01:19
Show me the rule that states that the facing of a unit with multiple mosters is determined by the nearest chargable monster within the unit.

Talonz
22-05-2007, 01:25
Tell me one problem with Salamanders specifically arising from the M&H rules and I'll concede the point :)


The problem is they're not monsters. This is as per both the brb section on monsters and the lizardmen abook. Nowhere is the term monsters applied to salamanders. They are a mixed unit of skirmishers with their own rules. Applying the monster/handler rules to them is incorrect and unnecesary, as I read it.

Dead Man Walking
22-05-2007, 01:37
All I get from this is that everyone has a different view as to how the rules should work. Even if I played by the rule variation that makes the game smoother it does not mean one of my opponents in a tourney will be willing to do so, they may stake a risky move on thier interpretation and not be willing to do it any other way.

A good way to fix the blocking charges thing is to keep each skink near its salamander, so 3 skinks in a pack must stay near thier salamander. This way you wont have 3 salamanders on one end and a long line of 9 skink handlers blocking chargers. They would stay togeather in a cloud.

This all just goes to prove my point, you cant go on interpretations. It has to be what the text says. It tests on a monster reaction chart and has handlers, thus I apply the monster with handlers rules.

Ganymede
22-05-2007, 02:50
Explain why the slamander rules don't explicitly say that they follow the monsters with handlers rules then.

Ninsaneja
22-05-2007, 04:27
@Atrahasis: Contesting your signature, please provide to me the quote saying that Salamanders are a unit of Monsters with Handlers? I don't see it in my book. I think that the RAW don't contain things that are not written.

IvorTangrean
22-05-2007, 06:36
In the BRB on page 265 in the Lizardmen Basic Characteristics section the last entry is for Skink Handler. The rule book calls them handlers not just the army book.

Since nobody has commented on this let me elaborate in the LM AB in the summary there is NO entry for Skink Handlers, they assume you will use the basic Skink stat line. Now the BRB on the other hand SPECIFICALLY CALLS THEM HANDLERS by adding the Skink Handler stat line to the summary under the Salamander stat line.

Festus
22-05-2007, 07:01
The BRB Bestiary has no value whatsoever apart from comparative purposes. Heck, ethereals have T7 there!

Hardly valuable...

Festus

IvorTangrean
22-05-2007, 08:37
Ok instead of this continuing as a random discussion why don't we set up a more formal debate. Now as a Lizardmen player I do have a vested interest in this topic but I will do my best to stay impartial in this post, but also as a Lizardmen player I want to have a definitive answer.

Lets now review the rules for skirmishers:
sk1) skirmishers are placed 1" apart instead of in rank and file units
sk2) 360-degree line of sight from each model in the unit
sk3) may freely move in any direction without penalty
sk4) may ignore difficult terrain
sk5) when charging they must bring the maximum number of models into combat
sk6) when charging after the maximum number of models have been placed in base to base the rest are placed in the back ranks
sk7) when charging models that cannot reach are placed in the back ranks
sk8) when charging any command group and characters are moved up to the fighting rank
sk9) when charged the skirmishers are aligned to the chargers front and follow rules sk5-8
sk10) when skirmishers are charging skirmishers they rank up perpendicular the direction of the charge and both units follow rules sk5-8
sk11) skirmishers may shoot in any direction
sk12) skirmishers do not block line of sight to other members of their unit
sk13) there is a -1 to hit penalty for shooting at a unit of man-sized skirmishers
sk14) skirmishers do have a flank and rear when in combat
sk15) skirmishers receive no rank bonus
sk16) skirmishers do not negate the rank bonus of enemy units when charging on the flank or rear
sk17) only man-sized characters on foot can join skirmishers

Now lets review the sub-section rules for Monsters and Handlers:
M&H1) Monsters and Handlers are a sub-section of the skirmisher rules
M&H2) made up of a monster and handlers
M&H3) move as skirmishers following rules sk1, sk3 and sk4
M&H4) the handlers are ignored for line of sight, only the monster's 90 degree arc is used, this violates rule sk2
M&H5) the monster can negate rank bonus as normal, this violates rule sk16
M&H6) once the monster is in combat the handlers are formed up around it following rules sk5-8
M&H7) each monster unit will have special shooting rules found in it's army book

Lets also define the rules of a non-mounted monster:
mo1) monsters may only join units when ridden by characters
mo2) monsters count as a normal unit with front, flanks and a rear
mo3) monsters may freely turn as they move
mo4) monsters may only turn once during a charge

Lets now discuss what advantages/disadvantages salamanders receive for being M&H
Advantages:
A1. the salamanders are the first models to be lined up, not the skinks
A2. the skinks are ignored for being charged
Disadvantages:
D1. the salamanders are less able to charge around terrain as the skinks may not be used for line of sight

Ok now that we have agreed on what a skirmisher unit does, what a Monster and Handler unit does, what a monster is and what would change if salamanders where M&H lets review the points for both why and why not Salamanders are M&H. So if anyone has anything to change or add to this so far please post what should be changed and I will update the list as it goes.

Skirmishers:
1. they are not listed as M&H just as skirmishers
2. salamanders are not monsters as they violate mo2 by being defined as skirmishers
3. salamanders are not monsters as they are on a 40mm base
4. the M&H rules refer to one singular monster not a unit of up to three
5. this is how they have been played since the release of the Lizardmen army book
6. as salamanders are skirmishers they violate rule M&H4

Monsters and Handlers
1. the skinks are listed in both the Lizardmen army book and the Main Rule book as being handlers
2. salamanders are monsters as the roll on the monster reaction chart
3. salamanders may be monsters as monsters use any base/no base

As much as I hate to admit it so far the reasons are a landslide for salamanders being just skirmishers.

IvorTangrean
22-05-2007, 08:49
What GW needs to do is have them count as skirmishers as they play best in all regards except in B2B and give them a special rule where the skinks let the salamanders do most of the fighting. Too bad this won't happen until the Lizardmen book is re-released (2020 at this rate as it is an otherwise solid book).

Atrahasis
22-05-2007, 11:42
1. they are not listed as M&H just as skirmishersWarhawk Riders are listed as flyers and not a unit of flyers. Are they then not a unit of flyers?


2. salamanders are not monsters as they violate mo2 by being defined as skirmishersThis is not a violation as Monsters and Handlers are skirmishers (M&H1).


3. salamanders are not monsters as they are on a 40mm baseUnfounded.


4. the M&H rules refer to one singular monster not a unit of up to threeThe main rulebook often ignores the possibility of "multiples". Complex situations are rarely covered explicitly in the main rules.


5. this is how they have been played since the release of the Lizardmen army bookFlawed as the Lizardmen book is bound by teh new 7th edition rules, just as frenzied troops in all army books (except Khornate mounted models :rolleyes:) are bound by the new frenzy rules, for example.

6. as salamanders are skirmishers they violate rule M&H4The violation is one explicit in their rules, and so while a violation it is a permitted special case, and therefore not a cause for concern.


As much as I hate to admit it so far the reasons are a landslide for salamanders being just skirmishers.None of your points for them being "just skirmishers" has any solid grounding.

IvorTangrean
23-05-2007, 06:02
3. salamanders are not monsters as they are on a 40mm base

Unfounded.

...

None of your points for them being "just skirmishers" has any solid grounding.

Yes they do to say the least page 71 where it says:



Up to & including Ogre-sized*
Square 40/50 mm base
On foot

Monster
(larger than Ogre-sized)**
Any base/no base


So with that in mind would a salamander fall under Monster or <=Ogre sized? Also while I am arguing for just skirmishers right now I do want them to be M&H I just want a solid reason behind it not just my desire for the salamanders to fight in B2B instead of skinks.

Also if YOU were a skink would you stand in front of or behind the fear causing creature?

Ninsaneja
23-05-2007, 06:14
@Atrahasis: Waiting for a reference where it states they follow the rules for Monsters & Handlers...

1. Salamanders are not monsters. No where does it call them a monster in their entry (aside from the spotty "monster reaction table" roll, which is only because they are a Controlled Creature and using the common rules instead of making up a Salamander Reaction Table.
2. It does not say they are a Monster & Handler unit. RAW, they don't follow any special situation rules unless it states that they are in that situation. Free Companies are not swarms and do not have frenzy, despite the fact that they might possibly be described as a frenzied swarm of militiamen. While salamanders might be a monster with handlers in a rough, descriptive sense, they don't have any reference to following the rules for such.
3. I wants my skirmisher move.

Atrahasis
23-05-2007, 14:34
So with that in mind would a salamander fall under Monster or <=Ogre sized?Base size does not define model type - if it did then a lot of monstrous mounts would be in the same predicament (pegasi, as mentioned earlier in the thread are one). In fact EVERYTHING would be monsters as "any base" would encompass everything.


@Atrahasis: Waiting for a reference where it states they follow the rules for Monsters & Handlers...Don't need one, just as we don't need a rule under Warhawk riders to tell us they are a unit of flyers.

WLBjork
24-05-2007, 07:31
Base size does not define model type - if it did then a lot of monstrous mounts would be in the same predicament (pegasi, as mentioned earlier in the thread are one). In fact EVERYTHING would be monsters as "any base" would encompass everything.

Nice idea, wonder what my opponents would make of that :D.

The only potential problem comes from the statement in US that a monster is "larger than Ogre-sized", yet it is noted that War Hydras are monsters (on page 7) - I'd call a War Hydra smaller than an Ogre.

The page (7) does specify that these are *normally* mounted on 40mm or larger bases though, which would indeed support Salamanders being Monsters, and the necessary Skinks as handlers.

Festus
24-05-2007, 08:18
Hi
I'd call a War Hydra smaller than an Ogre.You don't really mean this, do you?

Festus

Talonz
24-05-2007, 19:44
They are monsters as outlined under monsters and handlers.


You will NOT find any reference to salamanders being monsters in that rule, nor any other rule for that matter. They are not monsters. Their handlers are salamander handlers and follow their own rules (skirmishing).

Your argument is based an an assumption that they are monsters, with no basis in fact. You are applying a rule to them therefore that is not applicable.

The monsters & handlers rule is clearly used with singular monsters, like the DE war hydra, which is clearly noted as being a titanic monster in its bestiary entry.

potemkin
24-05-2007, 21:58
Page 40 of the Lizardmen AB:

RARE UNITS
A number of terrifying monsters.... <snip>

The Stegadon...<snip>
[pretty picture]

Salamander Huning Packs....<snip>
[pretty picture]


Does this mean that Salamanders are monsters or not? I have no idea.

Ganymede
25-05-2007, 00:28
Adolf Hitler was a monster, but does that me he wouldn't be able to hurt you if you shoved a rune of the true beast in his face?

Atrahasis
25-05-2007, 00:51
Adolf Hitler was a monster, but does that me he wouldn't be able to hurt you if you shoved a rune of the true beast in his face?

GODWIN'S!!!

theunwantedbeing
25-05-2007, 01:01
If a salamander isnt a monster....what is it exactly?
It's not mansized,its not cavalry,its not a war machine,or a chariot....

Ganymede
25-05-2007, 01:30
I'd say it is fundamentally similar to an ogre.

Atrahasis
25-05-2007, 02:10
I'd say it is fundamentally similar to an ogre.

There is more support for it being a monster than an ogre.

1. Monster Reaction
2. It has handlers. The only models mentioned in the rules to have handlers are monsters.

The only evidence against them being monsters is "I don't want them to be".

theunwantedbeing
25-05-2007, 02:18
Whats the difference?
The skinks cant get charged,so you cant simply charge one skink of the annoying unit you have to reach the salamander(s) itself(themselves).
The skinks still stop the enemy marching.
The only difference is that your charge arc isnt quite the same for when you want to charge...but that must be a pretty rare occasion.

So whats the problem with using them with the monster and handler rules?

IvorTangrean
25-05-2007, 03:00
The difference is do the skinks (Weak) move into combat or do the salamanders (Strong)?

Ganymede
25-05-2007, 03:17
There is more support for it being a monster than an ogre.

1. Monster Reaction

I'd argue that, because the salamander is specifically noted to take the monster reaction test, that taking the test is an exception to the normal rules. In other words, the fact that they take the test lends to the fact that they might not be monsters.

We don't need a notation telling us to make a monster reaction test with our dragons, pegasi, and monstrous spiders. Why? Because that's what monsters are silently assumed to do. The fact that we are boldly told to make a monster reaction test with these creatures can be easily read to mean that salamanders aren't monsters. After all, if they were monsters, there would be no need to inform the reader to take the test... it would be tacitly assumed.



2. It has handlers. The only models mentioned in the rules to have handlers are monsters.

...or ratogres, or squigs, or giant rats.

Considering that the monsters and handlers rules were written a good four years after the salamander rules were written, it seems a bit specious to assume that (by referring to the skinks as handlers) they were making reference to a rule that didn't yet exist.


There is a painfully simple litmus test here... Does the unit in question have the "monsters and handlers" special rule in its armylist entry?

IvorTangrean
25-05-2007, 03:20
There is a painfully simple litmus test here... Does the unit in question have the "monsters and handlers" special rule in its armylist entry?

Do any have it?

Ganymede
25-05-2007, 03:29
Nope, not a single one. It is to be expected, considering the new rulebook is more recent than any armybook that would possibly feature such beasties. There's only two units who might use it in the future: the War Hydra and, to a much lesser extent, a revised Hellcannon.

One could chalk it up to GW being prepared for the future armybooks, where such units might eventually be released.

IvorTangrean
25-05-2007, 04:11
Nope, not a single one. It is to be expected, considering the new rulebook is more recent than any armybook that would possibly feature such beasties. There's only two units who might use it in the future: the War Hydra and, to a much lesser extent, a revised Hellcannon.

One could chalk it up to GW being prepared for the future armybooks, where such units might eventually be released.

Yes but who can that Salamanders will not get M&H when the LM book gets revised?

Ganymede
25-05-2007, 04:37
The rules for monsters and handlers are not designed to accomodate more than one monster in the unit.

Unless they will be redesigned to be more like they were in the Ravening Hordes list, they will not use the monster and handlers rules.

guillaume
25-05-2007, 04:39
Yes but who can that Salamanders will not get M&H when the LM book gets revised?

in 2020!

hardly practical. I agree with the consensus that they are not monsters, because they were never declared as monsters in the 6ed.

So until 2020 when their status is revised, we should stick to how we've always done it.

Ninsaneja
25-05-2007, 05:54
Don't need one, just as we don't need a rule under Warhawk riders to tell us they are a unit of flyers.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but there is a specific rule noted under the Warhawk riders that they have flying? And there is a specific rule noted under flyers that a unit with flying does things in a specific way?

I see no such rule noted under Salamanders that they are M&H or even that they are monsters at all. In the manner you are stating, I will put forth the idea that ALL skirmishers would be M&H under your reasoning due to the fact that "you don't need a rule" to tell you what a monster is. As this is clearly not true (argue that point if you must) I will conclude that as it does not reference monsters and handlers anywhere except the fact that one of the model types is called a "Skink Handler," it is not actually a unit of this specific type. Much like how Free Companies are not actually free as you must pay money and points for them, I will not take the idea that their name dictates their rules (or else may I scout with them for one point due to the fact that they are Skinks?)

WLBjork
25-05-2007, 07:54
HiYou don't really mean this, do you?

Festus

Every time I see War Hydras on the table (or look at the photo on page 7 of the BRB) - mind you, I've never actually compared them to an Ogre :p

But visually, it appears that if you turned a War Hydra into a perfect sphere, and an Ogre into a perfect sphere the War Hydra's sphere would be noticably smaller than the Ogre's.

Mind you, I can talk about visually when I don't have good eyesight (can't see anything on a 19" monitor at about 1'6" without my glasses!):D

Talonz
25-05-2007, 08:00
If a salamander isnt a monster....what is it exactly?

A salamander. What more do you need to know outside of its own rules entry?



It's not mansized,its not cavalry,its not a war machine,or a chariot....

It fights on foot, and isnt a large target or monstrous mount...its infantry (with its own close support weaponry!).

Talonz
25-05-2007, 08:14
There is more support for it being a monster than an ogre.

Strawman. Similar to =! being an ogre.

Both have 3 wounds, fight on foot, and use a 40 mm base. Thus, similar.



The only evidence against them being monsters is "I don't want them to be".


Grasping, aren't we?

No, the rules on monsters are quite clear...only large target multiple wound single models or multiple wound mounts are monsters. The salamander is neither, and has no reference to it being a monster within its bestiary entry as a number of other monsters do.

Atrahasis
25-05-2007, 12:56
I'd argue that, because the salamander is specifically noted to take the monster reaction test, that taking the test is an exception to the normal rules. In other words, the fact that they take the test lends to the fact that they might not be monsters.Or it is simply making clear that as an unridden monster the salamander differs in that it takes the test once its handlers die rather than its rider.


We don't need a notation telling us to make a monster reaction test with our dragons, pegasi, and monstrous spiders. Why? Because that's what monsters are silently assumed to do.How do you know these things are monsters? Do they have a note under their entries telling you so?


Considering that the monsters and handlers rules were written a good four years after the salamander rules were written, it seems a bit specious to assume that (by referring to the skinks as handlers) they were making reference to a rule that didn't yet exist.True, however it is not nearly so specious to assume that when they wrote M&H they were thinking of Salamanders (among others).



There is a painfully simple litmus test here... Does the unit in question have the "monsters and handlers" special rule in its armylist entry?


Forgive me if I'm wrong, but there is a specific rule noted under the Warhawk riders that they have flying? And there is a specific rule noted under flyers that a unit with flying does things in a specific way?No, but there is a specific note in the Lizardmen book that Salamanders have handlers. If being a unit of multiple models and flying is enough to make warhawk riders a unit of flyers then being monsters with handlers is enough to have the Salamanders follow those rules.


I see no such rule noted under Salamanders that they are M&H or even that they are monsters at all.Where is the note under a Giant that it is a monster? Where is the note under Warhawk Riders that they are a unit? General rules do not need to be restated every time they come up to apply.


In the manner you are stating, I will put forth the idea that ALL skirmishers would be M&H under your reasoning due to the fact that "you don't need a rule" to tell you what a monster is.
We have a rule telling us what a monster is. It just isn't restated every time it applies.


As this is clearly not true (argue that point if you must) I will conclude that as it does not reference monsters and handlers anywhere except the fact that one of the model types is called a "Skink Handler," it is not actually a unit of this specific type.Salamanders are repeatedly referred to as monstrous, they have handlers, and take a monster reaction test. How much evidence do you want?


Strawman. Similar to =! being an ogre.

Both have 3 wounds, fight on foot, and use a 40 mm base. Thus, similar.My point was that being "similar" does not make you part of the class. Several monsters have 3 wounds and fight on foot. That doesn't make them ogre-class or not monsters.



No, the rules on monsters are quite clear...only large target multiple wound single models or multiple wound mounts are monsters. The salamander is neither, and has no reference to it being a monster within its bestiary entry as a number of other monsters do.Complete tosh. Where did you get the erroneous idea that lone monsters must be large targets?

ScreamingDoombull
25-05-2007, 15:17
I'll have to pull out my rulebook when I get home from work, but I believe the "handler and monster" crowd has a fair a valid point. By the wording, it seems that the skinks can block charges, deny countercharges, and then hide behind the sallies from any reprisals.

There seems to be a very easy and effective way to fix this. Remove the Salamander units from the army book. They are already a highly abusive unit and now clever wording has ensured another powergamer will have a new trick up his sleeve in a tourney. How rediculous is the concept of a move-and-shoot, auto-hit, Str5 T4 Atk3, M6 skirmisher with artillery dice shots and a puny misfire consequense? :cheese: Thankfully, our local LM player has gone MIA lately so we don't have to see these gamebreakers on the table-top.

The last time I played him, the entire game could be summed up like this: Sallies move into range, the rest of his army sits back. Shoot, destroy unit, shoot, panic unit, stand-and-shoot, destroy unit, shoot, destroy unit, stand-and-shoot, panic unit, stand-and-shoot, unit reaches hth! Unit eaten by sallies, shoot.... you get the idea.

I'm hoping the new army book comes out soon and fixes these abominations for good.

Ganymede
25-05-2007, 16:20
Or it is simply making clear that as an unridden monster the salamander differs in that it takes the test once its handlers die rather than its rider.




I doubt it, as there would be very little reason to do so. In such a case, "Note that the skinks count as the salamanders' riders despite the fact that they are based seperately." would suffice. If GW believes that we can identify a monster without needless redundancy, then the mentioning of the monster reaction test is largely redundant.

The large paragraph in the salamander's rules leads me to believe that they aren't monsters, just funky ogres with some jazzy special rules.



Several monsters have 3 wounds and fight on foot. That doesn't make them ogre-class or not monsters.


I was under the impression that everything that was on a 40mm base, had three wounds, fought on foot, and was arranged into multi-member units was ogre class infantry. Can you give me an example of a monster who does that?

Atrahasis
25-05-2007, 16:42
I was under the impression that everything that was on a 40mm base, had three wounds, fought on foot, and was arranged into multi-member units was ogre class infantry. Can you give me an example of a monster who does that?Salamanders.

Cragspyder
25-05-2007, 18:15
I'll have to pull out my rulebook when I get home from work, but I believe the "handler and monster" crowd has a fair a valid point. By the wording, it seems that the skinks can block charges, deny countercharges, and then hide behind the sallies from any reprisals.

There seems to be a very easy and effective way to fix this. Remove the Salamander units from the army book. They are already a highly abusive unit and now clever wording has ensured another powergamer will have a new trick up his sleeve in a tourney. How rediculous is the concept of a move-and-shoot, auto-hit, Str5 T4 Atk3, M6 skirmisher with artillery dice shots and a puny misfire consequense? :cheese: Thankfully, our local LM player has gone MIA lately so we don't have to see these gamebreakers on the table-top.

The last time I played him, the entire game could be summed up like this: Sallies move into range, the rest of his army sits back. Shoot, destroy unit, shoot, panic unit, stand-and-shoot, destroy unit, shoot, destroy unit, stand-and-shoot, panic unit, stand-and-shoot, unit reaches hth! Unit eaten by sallies, shoot.... you get the idea.

I'm hoping the new army book comes out soon and fixes these abominations for good.

Anything with a 1 or 2+ armour save, or anything with T4, and they start to have trouble wounding with their shots, though I can see panic being a problem. Empire, Bretonnians or Chaos could probably charge them with little to no consequences, probably other Lizardmen (Cold Ones) as well. And of course Dragon Princes are great for this (immune to flaming attacks). However, they only have 2 attacks (so your LM player might have been cheating, they have 3 wounds but only 2 attacks). And they do only have Leadership 5 Cold-Blooded. I admit, they are pretty cheap point-wise.

Ganymede
25-05-2007, 18:31
Salamanders.

That's funny.

But it does bring up a good point. We've both come to the conclusion that salamanders are truly something unique. There is nothing like them in the entirety of the warhammer universe.

let's stop the pigeon-holing and label assigning and just treat them as something completely unique.

Jonke
25-05-2007, 20:26
You can't stand and shoot with salamanders. And everytime my salamanders ends up in combat they are broken and run-down unless the enemy is huntsmen or something similar squishy. I recommend you to check the salamander rules if your opponent ever shows up again.

Peace!

Sanjuro
25-05-2007, 22:28
Yeah, I mean, they are good, but they can't really dominate the game all by themselves.

Talonz
02-06-2007, 06:40
dragons, pegasi, and monstrous spiders
How do you know these things are monsters? Do they have a note under their entries telling you so?

Because the monster rules say they are.



If being a unit of multiple models and flying is enough to make warhawk riders a unit of flyers then being monsters with handlers is enough to have the Salamanders follow those rules.

Warhawks are flyers, agreed.
Salamanders are not monsters. Thus you simply follow the rules given in the army book for salamander&handlers. You need to prove that they are in fact monsters before you apply the monster and handler rules.


General rules do not need to be restated every time they come up to apply.

Sure, but they still need to fit the general rule. Salamanders do not.



Salamanders are repeatedly referred to as monstrous

That term is not used in their bestiary entry. By 'repeatedly' you must have meant 'once, in an obscure and fluff related reference' or something else.


My point was that being "similar" does not make you part of the class.

No, but fighting on foot on a 40mm base and not being a monster does make it infantry.


Several monsters have 3 wounds and fight on foot. That doesn't make them ogre-class or not monsters.

All of which are monster mounts. Salamanders are not.


Complete tosh. Where did you get the erroneous idea that lone monsters must be large targets?

Mistaken assumption. What I actually said was "only large target multiple wound single models or multiple wound mounts are monsters." as per the brb monsters section.

Honestly now, what makes you think they are monsters? Your logic consists of 'well they use the monster reaction table and have handlers, and there is a monster&handler rule, so they must be monsters' all of which is putting your cart before your horse. Or simply put, an assumption.

They fit the infantry rules. They do not fit the monster rules. Ergo, they are infantry and not monsters.

IvorTangrean
02-06-2007, 07:42
Yes but it makes a huge difference as to how they play. Just the other day I had my almost unhurt Salamander unit brutally killed by Ogres (My friends last unit of three, just to fill points in his O&G army). Why? Because the skirmisher rules state that I must place as many models into contact as possible (ie. Skinks) meaning NONE of my +1 ws, +2 t, 4+ armour and +2 s models made it into combat (We diced off to decide if M&H). I lost the combat at -8 because of the loss the handlers. This is a huge change in how they fight.

And honestly if you were a skink would you stand in front of or behind the fear causing thing??

Evil-Lite
02-06-2007, 08:45
Ivor,

You would still get 2 Salamander's into BtB with the Ogres for retaliation strikes (corner to corner). Lining them up as M&H you would get 1 more Salamander into the fight; however, 2 of the Ogres would still be able to place attacks into the skinks (corner to corner). You would not have lost by 8; however, it would be close enough to 5 to not make a difference. Unless of course you did not place 2 Salamanders on the sides...

Talonz
02-06-2007, 09:34
Just the other day I had my almost unhurt Salamander unit brutally killed ... Because the skirmisher rules state that I must place as many models into contact as possible (ie. Skinks)

Interesting. I tend to think of 'maximizing' frontage as filling up all the available model spots, but you do have a point, it is 'number of models' that is maximized. We've always played that the lizardman player can maximize anyways he likes, including the salamanders, so long as he filled corner to corner.

Strictly speaking, that rule wouldn't allow that, but it was written with 1 unit of the same model size in mind. Doing otherwise would just be stupid.

Still, yet another item for the faq to resolve. But they dont have a forum anymore nor answer rules questions by email (what a copout) so we are left in utter limbo. *shakes head disparingly*

WLBjork
02-06-2007, 10:11
Because the monster rules say they are..

Not in my BRB. Page 7 notes War Hydras, Giants, Griffons, Dragons and Great Eagles. Page 58 does not add to this list. Page 71 only adds the Stegadon.

So the monster rules don't say that Pegasii and Monsterous Spiders are Monsters.

Evil-Lite
02-06-2007, 10:41
Page 71 does state the qualifications of a monster in a way.

Salamanders are not larger then Ogres and are on foot. Since monster's are larger then Ogre's how can a Salamander (being smaller then an Ogre) be a Monster?

Atrahasis
02-06-2007, 15:37
Salamanders are not larger then Ogres and are on foot. You're arguing that the size of the model determines whether something is a monster or not?

So if I model a fiant to be just shorter than an ogre he won't be affected by the rune of the true beast? Sweet.

Yellow Commissar
02-06-2007, 16:53
You're arguing that the size of the model determines whether something is a monster or not?

So if I model a fiant to be just shorter than an ogre he won't be affected by the rune of the true beast? Sweet.

Atrahasis, you are being intentionally obtuse :cries: , as usual.

Anyways, have you actually played games with Salamanders using the M&H rules? If so, were they balanced? How were the facing issues resolved?

I'm interested because I am willing to play them this way if there are no major rules conflicts. It certainly makes sense that you would charge the Salamanders and not the Skinks.

What concerns me most is how to determine the facing of the combat, and that Salamanders become a more useful unit if they can dictate facing. What about flank charges? Can Salamanders negate rank bonus?

In short, are you arguing the pure theory of the rules, or can you actually apply this in a game?

Atrahasis
02-06-2007, 17:11
I'm not being any kind of obtuse; I was highlighting the flaws in the line of reasoning presented.

And yes, I have used them in games (playing against them). The facing of a combat is determined by the closest salamander to the chargers. We played that they couldn't negate ranks as each salamander doesn't have the required US. We have encountered no problems using the rules in this manner, and it solves a lot of the problems that existed befoire M&H rules existed.

Ganymede
02-06-2007, 19:00
There are problems with how salamanders worked before the M&H rules?

Atrahasis
02-06-2007, 19:01
Yes. The way they were forced to rank up in combat was just one.

Yellow Commissar
02-06-2007, 20:57
I'm not being any kind of obtuse; I was highlighting the flaws in the line of reasoning presented.

And yes, I have used them in games (playing against them). The facing of a combat is determined by the closest salamander to the chargers. We played that they couldn't negate ranks as each salamander doesn't have the required US. We have encountered no problems using the rules in this manner, and it solves a lot of the problems that existed befoire M&H rules existed.

Cool, thanks. :)

That's what I needed to know. Seems fair enough, too.



I still think you knew full well that Evil-Lite was not arguing that a Giant modeled small enough would no longer count as a Monster. He just referenced the Unit Strength Chart on page 71 where it describes Monster as "larger than Ogre-sized".

His point is valid, yet in no way definitive. Obviously, it does not define a Monster as "larger than Ogre-sized", it just describes a Monster. It is not unreasonable to ask the question, then, if a Salamander is not larger than Ogre-sized, isn't one just infantry, or "up to & including Ogre-sized"?

Now, that being said, I do not believe that the chart on page 71 is particularly relevant. Neither, though, do I believe it should be completely ignored.

The real question, for me, is how to play it. Which way is more fun? How can I expect my opponent to want to play?

I'm looking forward to playtesting your solution, Atrahasis, thanks.

Evil-Lite
03-06-2007, 05:20
You're arguing that the size of the model determines whether something is a monster or not?

So if I model a fiant to be just shorter than an ogre he won't be affected by the rune of the true beast? Sweet.

That would be a conversion. I could model Orcs and place them on a 20mm base, does not mean it would follow the rules.

Everybody is arguing if a Salamander is a Monster or not. The only reference we have as to what is classified as a Monster is what we have in the rulebook on page 71. Find something to disprove that rule and we can debate some more. Find a monter that breaks the rule and we can debate. Last I have checked no where is a Salamander listed as a monster, except in the fluff. Ask people who frequent Bugmans what they have learned from trying to twist the fluff into rules. Short answer, does not work that way.

As I see it, at this time, Salamanders are not monsters because of the rules on page 71. Is the rule stupid? Unbelievable? Flawed? /shrug Call it what you will but they are still the rules.

Ganymede
03-06-2007, 05:20
Yes. The way they were forced to rank up in combat was just one.

That doesn't really seem like a problem. Just rank up the charged model, surround him with skinks, and stick the salamanders on the corners.

DeathlessDraich
03-06-2007, 12:17
Everybody is arguing if a Salamander is a Monster or not. The only reference we have as to what is classified as a Monster is what we have in the rulebook on page 71. Find something to disprove that rule and we can debate some more. Find a monter that breaks the rule and we can debate. Last I have checked no where is a Salamander listed as a monster, except in the fluff. Ask people who frequent Bugmans what they have learned from trying to twist the fluff into rules. Short answer, does not work that way.

As I see it, at this time, Salamanders are not monsters because of the rules on page 71. Is the rule stupid? Unbelievable? Flawed? /shrug Call it what you will but they are still the rules.

1) A dogmatic statement that Salamanders are not monsters itself is flawed and is not a logical deduction from the rules.

The rules do not explicitly state whether Salamanders are Monsters or not but they do take a Monster Reaction test.

Is a strict classification even necessary?

The Salamander unit is a Skirmisher unit as stated in the rules. This will determine how they move, their LOS and how they rank up in combat.

2) Players at Bugmans? They are not an authority. No single GW employee is an authority on the rules. The rules writers themselves are woefully inadequate having contradicted themselves on numerous occasions.
Only the rule books decides and only the rule books matters.

Atrahasis
03-06-2007, 16:53
The Salamander unit is a Skirmisher unit as stated in the rules. This will determine how they move, their LOS and how they rank up in combat.As I have said multiple times in this thread, Monsters and Handlers are a subcategory of skirmishers just as Units of Flyers are a subcategory of flyers. It isn't necessary to state that a unit of flyers follows the rules for Units of Flyers, so why is it necessary to state that monsters with handlers follow the rules for monsters with handlers?

Ganymede
03-06-2007, 17:16
Those two situations are not similar enough to warrant a strong enough comparison.

There are no rules for flyers, the over arching group. There are only rules for flying models and units of fliers, two subsets of flyers.

Additionally, while there is never any doubt as to whether or not a unit is a flying model or a unit of flyers, a unit of skirmishers and a unit of monsters and handlers can seem very similar. Take salamanders for example. By simply looking at unit composition, we are not given much of a clue as to which category they belong to. The opposite is true when we look at a unit of flyers.

Evil-Lite
03-06-2007, 23:29
1) A dogmatic statement that Salamanders are not monsters itself is flawed and is not a logical deduction from the rules.

The rules do not explicitly state whether Salamanders are Monsters or not but they do take a Monster Reaction test.

Is a strict classification even necessary?

Obviously a strict classification is needed or the thread would not be as long as it currently is.


1)The Salamander unit is a Skirmisher unit as stated in the rules. This will determine how they move, their LOS and how they rank up in combat.

But do they use the skirmish rules or the monster and handler rules, hence the debate if a Salamander is a monster or not.


1)2) Players at Bugmans? They are not an authority. No single GW employee is an authority on the rules. The rules writers themselves are woefully inadequate having contradicted themselves on numerous occasions.
Only the rule books decides and only the rule books matters.

I never said they where an authority. I pointed to them as an example. Players at one time read the fluff section in the Dwarf book where only Battle standard Bearers used Master runes on the banner. So they decided the rule was only Battle Standard bearers could use Master runes on standards, which is not true. Point dictate what can be placed on a banner. Same thing here with Salamanders. People read in the fluff that Salamanders are monsters and they put them into the monster category. Fluff is fluff and not rules.


As I have said multiple times in this thread, Monsters and Handlers are a subcategory of skirmishers just as Units of Flyers are a subcategory of flyers. It isn't necessary to state that a unit of flyers follows the rules for Units of Flyers, so why is it necessary to state that monsters with handlers follow the rules for monsters with handlers?

But are Salamanders monsters?

Talonz
04-06-2007, 07:31
Not in my BRB. Page 7 notes War Hydras, Giants, Griffons, Dragons and Great Eagles. Page 58 does not add to this list. Page 71 only adds the Stegadon.

So the monster rules don't say that Pegasii and Monsterous Spiders are Monsters.


You didnt read far enough, specefically the very next page and the section on monstrous mounts, and what qualfies as one. ie: a multi wound mount.

Talonz
04-06-2007, 07:38
You're arguing that the size of the model determines whether something is a monster or not?

So if I model a fiant to be just shorter than an ogre he won't be affected by the rune of the true beast? Sweet.

Good grief.

Large Target. Its not a hard concept to understand.


I'm not being any kind of obtuse; I was highlighting the flaws in the line of reasoning presented.

You knew full well that you were misrepresenting what he was quoting from the brb. ie: deliberately obtuse for the sake of being contrary.

Atrahasis
04-06-2007, 12:03
Good grief.

Large Target. Its not a hard concept to understand.Again, a model does not have to be a large target to be a monster. Its not a hard concept to understand. :rolleyes:




You knew full well that you were misrepresenting what he was quoting from the brb. ie: deliberately obtuse for the sake of being contrary.

No, I didn't. What he said gave no indication of what he was using to judge what was "larger than ogre sized". If he meant "Large Target" he'd be wrong. If he meant model size, he'd be wrong.

WLBjork
04-06-2007, 12:26
I never said they where an authority. I pointed to them as an example. Players at one time read the fluff section in the Dwarf book where only Battle standard Bearers used Master runes on the banner. So they decided the rule was only Battle Standard bearers could use Master runes on standards, which is not true. Point dictate what can be placed on a banner. Same thing here with Salamanders. People read in the fluff that Salamanders are monsters and they put them into the monster category. Fluff is fluff and not rules.

You mean in the old Dwarf Book? Which rule was validated when the SoC FAQ was released, as prior to that there hadn't been any <50pt Master Runes anyway?

Talonz
04-06-2007, 23:25
Again, a model does not have to be a large target to be a monster. Its not a hard concept to understand. [quote]

No kidding. Not under dispute. Any other strawman arguments you want to throw up?

Monsters are multi wound large target single models OR multi wound mounts. Are you going to actually accept, refute (with factual support) this or just ignore it as usual?


[quote] What he said gave no indication of what he was using to judge what was "larger than ogre sized".

He quoted brb p71. There is even a ** note that also adds to the 'larger than ogre' distinction on that page that includes great eagles, giants, etc. Great eagles are one example of non-large target monster mounts. What he was saying is that if salamaders are not large targets [and dont fall under those 'etc.' examples], how can it be a monster?

In your answer you simply assumed physical model size was the basis for his argument and not the actual large target rules[as one hurdle for defining monsters]. Thats deliberately obtuse.

skank
05-06-2007, 00:11
I thought the rules for monsters + handlers always refered to a single monster model (ie like a hydra) and a few handlers.
There is no mention of multiple monsters and handlers... or am i wrong?

Salamanders have the controlled creature rule, not monster and handler rule. Why create 2 rules for the same thing? (if controlled creature are monsters with handlers)

theunwantedbeing
05-06-2007, 00:50
This is a wierd thread.
Arguing that salamander hunting packs(made of a salamander and 3 skink handlers) dont follow the rules for monster and handlers.

The war hydra has a rule called "controlled" which is very similar to the rule for samalanders called "controlled creature".

Specifically it mentions that the rules vary for shooting at the unit depending on the size of the monster.
Now as far as I am aware the war hydra and salamander hunting packs are the only 2 things which can be classed as having to follow the monster and handler rules.

Going off that it must be reffering to the salmanders as following the rules for monster and handlers,as they are the only other thing it could be reffering to.

Atrahasis
05-06-2007, 00:51
Monsters are multi wound large target single models OR multi wound mounts. Are you going to actually accept, refute (with factual support) this or just ignore it as usual? There are several monsters that are neither monstrous mounts nor large targets.

Are you going to back your argument up with factual support?

Dead Man Walking
05-06-2007, 01:04
If a monster is a large target then why do they have to tell you to roll on the monster reaction chart and tell you it counts as a large target? Seems to me if Monsters were only large targets they would only have to say Monster and then naturally the large target rule applies because its a monster.

However thats not how the rules work, they are monsters and large targets.

Frankly this boils down to what the rules say, not what people would like them to say to make the game go smoother.

The unit description says a pack is a salamander and 3 skink handlers, not 'skinks' but 'skink handlers' and it rolls on the monster reaction chart. Therefore I am within my right to call them monsters with handlers in a tourney.

Talonz
05-06-2007, 04:49
There are several monsters that are neither monstrous mounts nor large targets.

Are you going to back your argument up with factual support?

I have. Monsters are multi wound large target single models OR multi wound mounts as per the monster rules, brb.

Are you going to give any examples to support your above statement?

Masque
05-06-2007, 05:27
I have. Monsters are multi wound large target single models OR multi wound mounts as per the monster rules, brb.

Are you going to give any examples to support your above statement?

High Elf Great Eagles are unridden when taken as rare choices.

Talonz
05-06-2007, 07:33
High Elf Great Eagles are unridden when taken as rare choices.


A riderless monster mount may not be mounted, but it is still a monstrous mount creature type.

Find me a monster that cannot at any time fit my monster definition given. I don't think it can be done.

Masque
05-06-2007, 08:22
How about Fenbeasts? They are not specifically stated to be monsters but they do have US 4 which is equal to their wounds as opposed to US 3 as if they were ogre-sized.

skank
05-06-2007, 12:00
Or tomb scorpions/gorgers, both are monsters and have no mounted equivalents and are not large targets.
Besides having mounted equivalents is of no bearing. Pegasus riders ride on pegasus that are not monsters while character ride monster pegasus.

Monsters alway fight alone (or with handelers) so they would not be able to join packs together.

It says in their entry they follow rules for skirmishers, why did they not just put the controlled monster rules there instead (as this includes the skirmish rule)?

ZomboCom
05-06-2007, 13:27
Or tomb scorpions/gorgers, both are monsters and have no mounted equivalents and are not large targets.
Besides having mounted equivalents is of no bearing. Pegasus riders ride on pegasus that are not monsters while character ride monster pegasus.


Who says gorgers etc are monsters? As far as I'm concerned they're ogre class infantry.

Pegasus knights are explicitly flying cavalry rather than monsters.

theunwantedbeing
05-06-2007, 13:37
Wait...a monster can be a non large target if its ridden,yet its not a monster if its not a large target when unridden?
That doesnt make any sense.

Gorgers are a unit of 1,move independantly and cannot join units.
And they are mounted on a 40mm base.
Going off page 7 they fit the description for monsters perfectly.

Tomb scorpions fit,as do chaos spawn,and great eagles for wood elves or high elves,none of which are large targets.

Festus
05-06-2007, 14:01
Gorgers are a unit of 1,move independantly and cannot join units.
And they are mounted on a 40mm base.
Going off page 7 they fit the description for monsters perfectly.Doesn't mean a thing: Hunters are Infantry still, even if they are on a 50mm Square base and can operate independantly... (even if they can be part of a unit, they have the wrong base size still)

I wouldn't be too strict on deciding what is a Monster and what is an Infantry Model.

Give it some leisurely leave. :)

Festus

skank
05-06-2007, 14:36
Eh, you don't mean ogre hunters?
They are characters (hero, join units, pass on Ld) so neither infantry or monsters...
How can it be that Gorgers fit perfectly as monster but that don't mean a thing?

I thought the whole point was if they (salamanders) are monsters they use controlled monsters rule, if not they are plain infantry skirmishers. Thats the whole point... no

Festus
05-06-2007, 17:31
Hi

Eh, you don't mean ogre hunters?
They are characters (hero, join units, pass on Ld) so neither infantry or monsters...Do you really want to argue that a Human Captain on a Steed is not a Cavalry model? :rolleyes:

As was already said in this thread, the Categories seem to be mutually exclusive - but they are not.

Guys, come on, a bit of *common sense* please ... gasp ... :eek:

Festus

skank
05-06-2007, 18:32
I do think a captain on a horse is a cavalry model (in that he is a guy on a horse) but no, he is not a cavalry unit.
Yes i think the unit catagories are exclusive, why is that against common sense, makes things simpler.

I am quite new here, what is the reason unit catagories are not exclusive? No sub-catagories are mentioned in the BSB.

Evil-Lite
07-06-2007, 03:40
Eh, you don't mean ogre hunters?
They are characters (hero, join units, pass on Ld) so neither infantry or monsters...

Hunters can not join units.

Last time I checked characters classified as infantry can enter buildings if they fall into the infantry category. Characters on a mount can not enter a building, A character on foot can. Since only infantry can enter a building how can a character on foot enter the building unless infantry?



How can it be that Gorgers fit perfectly as monster but that don't mean a thing?

Because Gorgers are not monsters.

skank
07-06-2007, 12:51
Hmm, i see your point.
However, nowhere does it mention classified or catagory (as you put it) in the text, only that character that 'counts as' infantry can enter buildings.

Yes a character on a horse follows some cav rules and on foot others, using rule common to other unit types does not make you a mix of those types. Ogres use some chariot rules but are not infantry/chariots.

A warhorse is just wargear to a character, if it changed his unit catagory it would say so in the entry, like a shaggoth changing from monster to character when marked.

Lord Zarkov
07-06-2007, 14:40
Hmm, i see your point.
A warhorse is just wargear to a character, if it changed his unit catagory it would say so in the entry, like a shaggoth changing from monster to character when marked.

It doesn't need to


The term cavalry refers to riders mounted on horse-sized creatures that have only 1 wound in their profile, mounted on a 25mm by 50mm 'cavaley base'

Is the character mounted on the Warhorse? - check
It it horse-sized? - check
Does it have one wound? - check
Is it on the correct base? - check

Therefore the character (being the rider of said warhorse) becomes cavalry
QED

skank
07-06-2007, 15:26
*The warhorse is just wargear
*Cavalry is not always 'horse sized'
*A character on a warhorse does not have 1 wound (nor do some cavalry units).
*Cavalry come on different base sizes, as do all unit types.

If you look under 'Units' p6 you will see 'a unit consists of SEVERAL models (cavalry or infantry) that have banded together, but a lone character, a chariot or a dragon, a war machine and it's crew, etc, are also considered to be a unit'.

Also say you were right, if a character suddenly becomes a cavalry unit just because you put him on a horse, he can then be joined by characters right?

A character on a mount is not a cavalry unit, a gorger is a monster and salamanders are infantry so use the skirmish rule (not handled monster despite some simularities).

Atrahasis
07-06-2007, 15:42
*The warhorse is just wargear
*Cavalry is not always 'horse sized'
*A character on a warhorse does not have 1 wound (as you pointed out, a requirement to be a cavalry unit).
*Cavalry come on different base sizes, as do all unit types.

Also say you were right, if a character suddenly becomes a cavalry unit just because you put him on a horse, he can then be joined by characters right?

If you look under 'Units' p6 you will see 'a unit consists of SEVERAL models (cavalry or infantry) that have banded together, but a lone character, a chariot or a dragon, a war machine and it's crew, etc, are also considered to be a unit'.

A character on a mount is not a cavalry unit, a gorger is a monster and salamanders are infantry so use the skirmish rule (not handled monster).
I can't find a single thing in this post that is supported by the rules. Except of course the direct rules quotation.

Talonz
07-06-2007, 21:09
How about Fenbeasts? ...Or tomb scorpions/gorgers, both are monsters ...

What makes them monsters? They are single model multi wounds, but are not larger than ogresized (like a single troll), and thus ogre equivalent infantry. Note that Dragonogres are also 4 wound creatures, but are specefically noted as ogre-sized on the US chart.


Chaos spawn.

Specefically noted as ogre sized in the US chart.


Besides having mounted equivalents is of no bearing. Pegasus riders ride on pegasus that are not monsters while character ride monster pegasus.

Correct. An anomoly to be sure, but this is why it is better to follow the specefic bestiary entries over general rules wherever possible. In this case the pegasus knights clearly have their own 'flying cavalry' rules rather than following the monstrous mount rules that the royal pegasus does.

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

Now the real question is does this matter for anything but the monster&handler rules? It does, because if an individual model are not monsters or characters, they have to follow the unit maneovre rules. Which means turning would cost 1/4 of their movement, which is silly. The only notation for moving individual models (outside of the monster/character rules) is that individual models may march. Thats simply a good example of how WFB rules are pathetic and should always be taken with a grain of salt.

The rules on monsters state that "there are many creatures roughly human in appearance...such as orcs, trolls, and minotaurs, but there are also bigger and more bizarre monsters, such as griffons, dragons and hydras." The rules go on to state "If a mount has 2 or more wounds, it is classed as a monstrous mount...". and "Monsters always fight individually".

Therefore 'bigger AND bizarre' and individual model creatures or multi wound mounts are monsters. The only measurement we have of size in the rules is the large target definition. So if youre not a larget target multi wound individual model or multi wound mount, you should NOT be a monster.

So now what? Well until they clarify either way in a new faq, it is essentially up to your and your opponent. I'm so fed up with WFB rules I dont care either way anymore.

phew.

theunwantedbeing
07-06-2007, 21:18
I dont see why people are so against them following the rules for monsters and handlers,what is it about the rule thats so detestful and so unfair to them?

Talonz
07-06-2007, 21:33
Because with up to 9 skinks in the unit, you could abuse the skirmisher rules to place them in such ways that they block enemy movement yet they cant be charged themselves.

As per the OP;
"Now according to the rules about handlers only the monsters count for purposes of charging or being charged and to count the handlers as not being there ...That meant that he couldnt charge the skink handlers, but they also blocked his charge to kroxigors that were behind the skinks. "

Now the rules on M&H state "When charging or being charged though, the handlers are completely ignored (as if they were not there) and the monster is the only model that matters.".


An argument could be made that when an enemy is charging something else (ie the kroxigors above), he still gets to ignore the handlers and complete his charge. The counterargument is that the rules above apply to handlers charging or being charged only. Broken down, I think the former is stronger and makes for a better game.

But they could still block regular movement while not being chargeable themselves, which would be immensely stupid and frustrating.

Masque
07-06-2007, 22:01
How about Fenbeasts? They are not specifically stated to be monsters but they do have US 4 which is equal to their wounds as opposed to US 3 as if they were ogre-sized.


What makes them monsters? They are single model multi wounds, but are not larger than ogresized (like a single troll), and thus ogre equivalent infantry. Note that Dragonogres are also 4 wound creatures, but are specefically noted as ogre-sized on the US chart.

Ogre-sized infantry are normally US3, but Fenbeasts are specifically stated to be US4. Doesn't this imply they are larger than ogre-sized and thus monsters?


Now the real question is does this matter for anything but the monster&handler rules? It does, because if an individual model are not monsters or characters, they have to follow the unit maneovre rules. Which means turning would cost 1/4 of their movement, which is silly. The only notation for moving individual models (outside of the monster/character rules) is that individual models may march. Thats simply a good example of how WFB rules are pathetic and should always be taken with a grain of salt.

Individual models that are not US1 normally move like monsters. See page 269 of the BRB. Which means that movement is not the issue. Whether or not something is a monster is important for several magic items and spells though.

ZomboCom
07-06-2007, 23:29
I dont see why people are so against them following the rules for monsters and handlers,what is it about the rule thats so detestful and so unfair to them?

The m+h rules say to use the monster (singular) for line of sight. There can be multiple skirmishing "monsters" in a salamander unit, so which would you use for line of sight and flank arcs. One random one? An average of all of them?

The rules don't cover it at all.

It's quite simple when you read the full m+h rules (and not just the requirements everyone is arguing over) that they cannot possibly apply to salamanders, since they make no sense at all when applied to that unit.

Atrahasis
07-06-2007, 23:41
The m+h rules say to use the monster (singular) for line of sight. There can be multiple skirmishing "monsters" in a salamander unit, so which would you use for line of sight and flank arcs. One random one? An average of all of them?Welcome to page 2 :rolleyes:

Talonz
08-06-2007, 02:40
Ogre-sized infantry are normally US3, but Fenbeasts are specifically stated to be US4. Doesn't this imply they are larger than ogre-sized and thus monsters?

No. Why would it? Characters all have more wounds than troopers, are they bigger? Gorgers are 'ogre-kin', so why would they be monsters? Wounds are simply a measure of how much damage they can take before 'dying', not a measure of size (although it could be said that often wounds do go up with size, they simply do not constitute an increase in size by themselves).




Individual models that are not US1 normally move like monsters. See page 269 of the BRB. Which means that movement is not the issue. Whether or not something is a monster is important for several magic items and spells though.

Magic, definitely an issue. I do not see anything in the brb that supports your 1 model >us1 = move as monster statement though. My rb only goes to page 128.

IvorTangrean
08-06-2007, 03:15
Magic, definitely an issue. I do not see anything in the brb that supports your 1 model >us1 = move as monster statement though.

page 72 character movement.


My rb only goes to page 128.

Funny mine only goes to 122?

Masque
08-06-2007, 04:05
No. Why would it? Characters all have more wounds than troopers, are they bigger? Gorgers are 'ogre-kin', so why would they be monsters? Wounds are simply a measure of how much damage they can take before 'dying', not a measure of size (although it could be said that often wounds do go up with size, they simply do not constitute an increase in size by themselves).
I'll try again.

FENBEAST

Unit Strength 4

More US than Ogre-Sized

Get it?


Magic, definitely an issue. I do not see anything in the brb that supports your 1 model >us1 = move as monster statement though. My rb only goes to page 128.

Of course you don't see it if you don't have the page I told you to look at.

BRB, Page 269, Last Man Standing:

"The last surviving model of a unit of infantry with a unit strength of 1 is treated in all respects like a skirmisher.

The last surviving model of a unit of infantry with a unit strength of more than 1 or a unit of cavalry is treated in all respects like a monster (except that characters may still join it to form a unit)."

Talonz
08-06-2007, 04:52
I'll try again.

FENBEAST

Unit Strength 4

More US than Ogre-Sized

Get it?

A restatement of a flawed argument is not a convincing argument. US is not size. The US rules also clearly state "some unique creatures may be an exception to the chart...will be clearly specified in that units special rules" as the fenbeast is.




Of course you don't see it if you don't have the page I told you to look at.

I dub thee captain obvious.



BRB, Page 269, Last Man Standing:

"The last surviving model of a unit of infantry with a unit strength of 1 is treated in all respects like a skirmisher.

The last surviving model of a unit of infantry with a unit strength of more than 1 or a unit of cavalry is treated in all respects like a monster (except that characters may still join it to form a unit)."

Excellent. I wish that was in the mini rb. We're still left with the magic conundrum however.

Masque
08-06-2007, 05:06
A restatement of a flawed argument is not a convincing argument. US is not size. The US rules also clearly state "some unique creatures may be an exception to the chart...will be clearly specified in that units special rules" as the fenbeast is.

I kept saying that the Fenbeast has more US than an ogre-sized creature and you kept talking about wounds. I was just trying to make sure my point was getting across. I still think that the fact it is US4 which happens to be equal to its wounds is a strong indication that it is a monster rather than ogre-sized.

skank
08-06-2007, 10:20
I dont see why people are so against them following the rules for monsters and handlers,what is it about the rule thats so detestful and so unfair to them?

It's a perfectly good rule, it just does not apply to salamanders as they are not monsters.
What is wrong with the infantry/skirmish rules? After all salamanders fit 100% into the infantry catagory, there is nothing stopping them being infantry,no problem at all.
It's only you try to say they are monsters you run into difficulty. Things like monters alway fight alone or with handlers/riders (ie not with other monsters).

A Fenbeast/Gorger must be a monster.

*It is not several models banded together so not infantry/cavalry
*It is not a warmachine/chariot/character(right?)

The only unit catagory it fits in is monster and it happens it fit the monster catagory perfectly. Thats good enough for me...

IvorTangrean
08-06-2007, 15:26
What is wrong with the infantry/skirmish rules?

Skirmishers must get as many models into b2b contact as possible (ie skinks as they are 20mm compared to the salamanders 40mm). M&H the monster(s) is the one(s) that move into b2b first.

Which would you want the 2 ws3 s5 (salamander) attacks or the 2 ws2 s3 (skinks) ones? Also t4 4+ sv 3 wounds vs t2 no save two one wound models?

skank
08-06-2007, 15:47
I guess the Lizardman would want the salamanders in Btb and their opponent would want the opposite. Too bad for the lizardman player.

I don't see your point.

Masque
08-06-2007, 16:45
A Fenbeast/Gorger must be a monster.

*It is not several models banded together so not infantry/cavalry
*It is not a warmachine/chariot/character(right?)

The only unit catagory it fits in is monster and it happens it fit the monster catagory perfectly. Thats good enough for me...

While I do think the Fenbeast is a monster I'm not so sure about Gorgers. And you're reasoning for classing them as monsters seems flawed. Chaos Spawn are single models but are definately ogre-sized infantry rather than monsters.

skank
08-06-2007, 22:41
Ok, then could you tell me the flaw in the reasoning?

A gorger has the same wounds/Unit strength as a fenbeast. It is unit size is 1 which puts it out of the infantry catagory acording to page 6 of the Brb.
That it is a big ogre (it is much bigger than your standard ogre) is not important, just fluff.
Dragon ogres are less mature shaggoths yet are not monsters but infantry.

Spawn are not infantry as, again, acording to the Brb infantry must be several models strong.
Spawn are unit size 1, fight alone, have the same wounds as Unit strength and does not fit into any other catagory.

Atrahasis
08-06-2007, 22:42
Spawn are not infantry as, again, acording to the Brb infantry must be several models strong.
Spawn are unit size 1, fight alone, have the same wounds as Unit strength and does not fit into any other catagory.The rulebook specifically says Spawn are Ogre-class infantry.

skank
08-06-2007, 23:16
Oh yeah... :o

That would explain why they state the unit strenght in the entry, can't just be simple...
I guess because you get 2 for 1.

Don't help salamanders be monsters though.

Evil-Lite
09-06-2007, 00:06
Ok, then could you tell me the flaw in the reasoning?

A gorger has the same wounds/Unit strength as a fenbeast.

A Gorger has the same number of wounds; however, a Gorger is only US-3.

skank
09-06-2007, 02:36
Ok... Where is that? It is stated in the armybook/Brb? If that is true it blows my theory out the water.

Evil-Lite
09-06-2007, 02:59
Page 71 in the rulebook.

Dead Man Walking
09-06-2007, 03:14
Until GW says otherwise I and my gameing group are calling them handlers and monster. They roll on monster reaction chart thus they are monsters. The pack does not consist of salander and 3 skinks it consists of salamanders and 3 skink handlers.

Thus if you go by the letter of the law they are monsters and handlers and they are exceptions to the rules about Unit strength, wounds, facings, ogre sized infantry, typical monster stats, bodywieght, bad breath or what ever other rules everyone is trying to force upon them to make them fit thier minds eye of how the game rules work.

If someone uses them to charge block other units unfairly then they will be regarded by thier opponent as cheaters and rightfully so.

So lets just hope GW can step up on this one and FAQ it soon.

Evil-Lite
09-06-2007, 06:09
Until GW says otherwise I and my gameing group are calling them handlers and monster. They roll on monster reaction chart thus they are monsters. The pack does not consist of salander and 3 skinks it consists of salamanders and 3 skink handlers.

That would be called a house rule and nothing wrong with that in the least.


Thus if you go by the letter of the law they are monsters and handlers and they are exceptions to the rules about Unit strength, wounds, facings, ogre sized infantry, typical monster stats, bodywieght, bad breath or what ever other rules everyone is trying to force upon them to make them fit thier minds eye of how the game rules work.

If you go by the letter of the law they are Salamanders and skinks, nothing more. Salamanders are not classified as monsters by the rule book. Play with them as you like. Do not try to say the letter of the law calls them monsters, because the rules classify them in the same category as Ogres.

Masque
09-06-2007, 08:20
Ok, then could you tell me the flaw in the reasoning?

A gorger has the same wounds/Unit strength as a fenbeast. It is unit size is 1 which puts it out of the infantry catagory acording to page 6 of the Brb.
That it is a big ogre (it is much bigger than your standard ogre) is not important, just fluff.
Dragon ogres are less mature shaggoths yet are not monsters but infantry.

Spawn are not infantry as, again, acording to the Brb infantry must be several models strong.
Spawn are unit size 1, fight alone, have the same wounds as Unit strength and does not fit into any other catagory.

We know how many wounds Fenbeasts and Gorgers have (4) because we can see it in their statlines. We also know how much US Fenbeasts have (4) because it's in their special rules. We don't know how much US Gorgers have because we are not told and we are not told if they are a monster or ogre-sized.

For several single model units there is simply no way to know whether they are a monster or not. There are only two ways to know for sure if something is a monster. If something has multiple wounds, is not a chariot, and has something riding it, it's a monster. If the rules tell us something is a monster, it's a monster. Without one of those two things we just have to guess.


If you go by the letter of the law they are Salamanders and skinks, nothing more. Salamanders are not classified as monsters by the rule book. Play with them as you like. Do not try to say the letter of the law calls them monsters, because the rules classify them in the same category as Ogres.

The rules don't classify them at all. So we are left to our own devices. I'm definately on the side of Salamanders being monsters with the monster reaction test as the largest indicator thereof.

ThePete
09-06-2007, 11:04
They are monsters in that they roll on the 'Monster reaction chart'. Otherwise they would roll on the Ogre class skirmishing infantry chart. :eek:

Direwold faq means as much as a bucket of lead in a swimming contest in my gaming league, if its not an official document from GW (Faq) you have to go by the in print text according to the rules. Thus the units rules denotes them as skink handlers and they follow the rules on handlers. We dont make houserules either as you cant expect outsiders to adhere to your house rules and our intentions are to make outsiders members.

Exactly. I was going to post this.

Dead Man Walking
09-06-2007, 16:52
My gaming group does not make house rules, we go by what the lizardman book specifically says.

Festus
09-06-2007, 18:20
The Lizzie Book just names things. It doesn't tell you to apply the rule.
Or does a Troll Slayer only slay trolls and is inept at anything else??? :D

Don't get me wrong: You may play as you like, but what you do is at least an interpretation - and a questionable at that, as this thread shows - or a house rule.

Festus

skank
09-06-2007, 20:15
Evil-lite/ Are you saying that a gorger is an ogre so Unit strenght 3? Because if so you are wrong, Ogre-kin in the fluff means nothing. If it was infantry it would state the unit strength in it's entry (like the spawn...)

Salamaders are not monsters because they follow the monster reaction table any more than mounted characters are monster because they follow the monster movment rules.
To tell if something is a monster you have to look at the description of a monster unit p7 that is it.

Ganymede
09-06-2007, 20:28
If a gorger was an ogre, you'd be able to cast gut magic on it.

Negativemoney
09-06-2007, 20:46
In the Lizardman rulebook Pg 29 it has the special rule "Controlled Creature" in it the skinks are refered to as Handlers. It also states that they follow the rules for Skirmishers.

Now in the rule book page 67 under the rules for "Skirmishers" there is a section titled "Monsters & Handlers". Since the skinks are Handlers this section would apply. Also all the rules that are present for "Controlled Creature" are also in the "Monsters & Handlers" section of the rule book.

so in conclusion salamanders are monsters.

ZomboCom
10-06-2007, 01:30
In the Lizardman rulebook Pg 29 it has the special rule "Controlled Creature" in it the skinks are refered to as Handlers. It also states that they follow the rules for Skirmishers.

Now in the rule book page 67 under the rules for "Skirmishers" there is a section titled "Monsters & Handlers". Since the skinks are Handlers this section would apply. Also all the rules that are present for "Controlled Creature" are also in the "Monsters & Handlers" section of the rule book.

so in conclusion salamanders are monsters.

There is no logic in that argument.

Just because they are refered to as controlled creatures has no bearing on them being monsters.

Hey, Dragon Ogres have Dragon in the name, so they must be able to fly and breathe fire!

Evil-Lite
10-06-2007, 01:49
Evil-lite/ Are you saying that a gorger is an ogre so Unit strenght 3? Because if so you are wrong, Ogre-kin in the fluff means nothing. If it was infantry it would state the unit strength in it's entry (like the spawn...)

No I am saying Gorgers are Ogre sized.

"Up to & including Ogre-sized" are unit strength 3.





To tell if something is a monster you have to look at the description of a monster unit p7 that is it.

You also have to follow the rules on page 71. And the Gorger is capable of falling under the rules of infantry just as easily.


In the Lizardman rulebook Pg 29 it has the special rule "Controlled Creature" in it the skinks are refered to as Handlers. It also states that they follow the rules for Skirmishers.

So Salamanders are creatures and not monsters? From my understanding Controlled Creature is the army book special rule for Salamanders. Since the books special rule trumps the BrB rules you would treat them exactly like the Army book states (Skirmishers).


Now in the rule book page 67 under the rules for "Skirmishers" there is a section titled "Monsters & Handlers". Since the skinks are Handlers this section would apply. Also all the rules that are present for "Controlled Creature" are also in the "Monsters & Handlers" section of the rule book.

so in conclusion salamanders are monsters.


Your conclusion is faulty logic. Monsters & Handlers is refering to Monsters (salamanders are not monsters by page 7 or 71) and Handlers (skinks are handlers). Since you only have half the requirment Salamanders do not fall into the category of Monster & Handlers.

Now if "all" rules for Controlled Creatures where in the Monster and Handlers section this argumet would not exist because people would follow the rules for Controlled Creature.

Talonz
10-06-2007, 06:27
Spawn are not infantry as, again, acording to the Brb infantry must be several models strong.

Untrue, there are multiple examples of single model infantry. Spawn, Trolls and lone surviving models for example.

Festus
10-06-2007, 09:05
Hi

... a Spawn definitely is a Monster...
Ok, as it doesn't make a difference, A Spawn is infantry. So an unbreakable character could join a Spawn? So you could cast a Spell on a Chaos Modell and have him join the Spawn - hmmm... there is potential in that.

Festus

DeathlessDraich
10-06-2007, 10:34
This discussion should be closed. We've heard all the arguments, flawed or not repeated for the umpteenth time.

The rule book indirectly states that Chaos spawns are not Monsters pg 71.

IvorTangrean
12-06-2007, 06:47
I started a new thread on Warseer with a poll on this topic so every one please vote. (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88662)