PDA

View Full Version : Greater Demons... monsters?



Dragon of the Pants
28-07-2007, 05:22
Do greater demons (Bloodthirster for example) count as monsters for purposes of rules such as the BoC armour that makes it impossible for monsters to attack the wearer?

sulla
28-07-2007, 05:34
It's a grey area but I think the weight of evidence is pointing toward them being characters, not monsters... so, no. The item won't protect the beast character from it.

Masque
28-07-2007, 05:58
I see them as both characters and monsters.

Sherlocko
28-07-2007, 08:18
The rules say that such characters only follow some of the rules of monster, and in the book they only rules wich they specifically follows are the ones for movement, so I would say they do not count as monsters. Another reason might be that Gav said so during a indy GT in the US a month or so ago.

And the item in the BoC-book is not an armour, it is a talisman. :)

Masque
28-07-2007, 09:54
If they aren't monsters and/or the only monster rules they follow is movement then Greater Daemons would only be US 3. Additional strangeness would follow if there is no overlap allowed between monsters and characters. A Dragon Ogre Shaggoth is clearly a monster and thus has US 6 because it has 6 wounds. But if you upgrade it to a Champion, and thus a character (removing its status as a monster) then it would be merely ogre-sized and become US 3. I think we can all agree that it would be silly for a Shaggoth Champion to have less US than a regular Shaggoth.

Falkman
28-07-2007, 11:52
The rules say that such characters only follow some of the rules of monster, and in the book they only rules wich they specifically follows are the ones for movement
The book says they follow the monsters rules for movement, but it doesn't rule out them following additional rules.
As far as I'm concerned, they are both monsters and characters, and hence will suffer from the Rune of the True beast, The collar of Zorga and other similar items.

Festus
28-07-2007, 12:07
Hi

As far as I'm concerned, they are both monsters and characters, and hence will suffer from the Rune of the True beast, The collar of Zorga and other similar items.
Agreed.

Festus

EvC
28-07-2007, 12:45
Gav's said on record that they count as characters for items that would stop monsters from attacking, though that is not really supported by the rules...

theunwantedbeing
28-07-2007, 13:14
A character is a character,he may be so big he follows some of the rules for monsters but that doesnt make him a monster.

I wouldnt apply any effects for things like the rune of the true beast or the collar of zorga on something like a greater daemon or shaggoth champion.

They are character's afterall and character's arent affected by such items.

Ninsaneja
28-07-2007, 13:36
A character is a character,he may be so big he follows some of the rules for monsters but that doesnt make him a monster.

I wouldnt apply any effects for things like the rune of the true beast or the collar of zorga on something like a greater daemon or shaggoth champion.

They are character's afterall and character's arent affected by such items.

Circular logic? Or am I missing a vital cut-off?

Braad
28-07-2007, 13:50
Hi

Agreed.

Festus

All bow to the word of Festus!

I agree. What I can find on this is the following: BRB page 7, section: characters.
Some characters, like the mighty daemon princes of chaos, are so large and powerfull that they follow the rules for monsters.

Not some rules, not a few rules, simply "the" rules.

Atrahasis
28-07-2007, 14:10
Some characters, like the mighty daemon princes of chaos, are so large and powerfull that they follow the rules for monsters.

Not some rules, not a few rules, simply "the" rules.The rules don't say that any more :)

The word "some" was inserted by the first round of 7th edition errata.

Its not really clear whether they are monsters or not, die to the insertion of the word "some". Gav has indeed said that they are not monsters for this purpose, but until its printed somewhere it should be taken as guidance rather than law.

theunwantedbeing
28-07-2007, 14:21
Monsters cant join units character's can.
Which would you say is the prevailing rule?

If they can,the collar does nothing to them.
If they cant,then the collar works.

Atrahasis
28-07-2007, 14:28
Monsters cant join units character's can.
Which would you say is the prevailing rule?

If they can,the collar does nothing to them.
If they cant,then the collar works.
Your logic is woefully flawed, even if your conclusion is correct.

theunwantedbeing
28-07-2007, 14:38
How is it flawed?
Please explain rather than simply stating its wrong without anything to back up what your saying.

Atrahasis
28-07-2007, 14:45
Your logic depends on the unit categories being completely exclusive. That is not the case.

Masque
28-07-2007, 15:27
There is no rule preventing monsters from joining units. There is no rule preventing war machines from joining units either. There is only a rule allowing characters to join units. If a monster is a character it can join a unit.

theunwantedbeing
28-07-2007, 15:54
page 58
The first 3 lines below "the monster model" title on the right hand side of the page.

They cant join units.

Masque
28-07-2007, 16:04
I went and looked and you're right. Take a look at the diagram on the next page though. See the example of a charging monster? What monster is that? Is that monster ridden? Can it join a unit?

It's a Slann. It is not ridden. It can definately join a unit. And, most importantly, it is a character.

That rule you pointed out is completely unneeded and apparently false.

Sherlocko
28-07-2007, 17:33
The book says they follow the monsters rules for movement, but it doesn't rule out them following additional rules.
As far as I'm concerned, they are both monsters and characters, and hence will suffer from the Rune of the True beast, The collar of Zorga and other similar items.

So basically, because they follow some of the rules of monsters they are monsters? Would that make chariots monster too, since they "normally move and fight individually as large monsters"? (p. 63 BRB)

Festus
28-07-2007, 17:38
So basically, because they follow some of the rules of monsters they are monsters? No, they are Characters - and Monsters, where applicable.

Unfortunately, the BRB does not tell us when to use Monster rules and when not...

Festus

Sherlocko
28-07-2007, 17:56
Only in one occasion do they specify, and that it movement. :)

Therefore, I will follow Gav´s take on this, because if the rulebook won´t tell me he is probably the next best thing.

Falkman
28-07-2007, 17:58
As you say yourself, a chariot specifies that it moves and fights individually, like a monster. It doesn't say that it follows the rules for monsters ;)
And as there is nothing whatsoever that states what part of the monster rules a character can follow, you just have to go with it all.
Or would you not count a character on a horse as cavalry either?

sandpeople
28-07-2007, 19:53
Guy recently answered this one and other "grey area-questions"

They are characters!

Shaggoth = monster
shaggoth champ = character
greater daemons = Characters
Treeman = monster
Treeman ancient = Character

If one of these (or similar) takes up a rare choice its a monster
If they take up a lord slot (or other character slots) they are characters

It´s on the web page called herdstone. A beasts of chaos forum.

Falkman
28-07-2007, 20:39
Well, it's hardly official if it's just said on a forum, is it?

DarkTerror
28-07-2007, 21:54
Where does it say that Greater Daemons are monsters?

eldrak
28-07-2007, 21:54
And as there is nothing whatsoever that states what part of the monster rules a character can follow, you just have to go with it all.
You pretty much ignore that p.7 refers to the character section which lists which monster rules they follow (movement) then?

I'm still waiting for them to include to what category everything belongs in the army book entries, would help us get rid of much confusion. Monsters, cavalry (hounds, bulls...), and some fliers seem to be the problem areas right now. Or they could state if (which?) categories are exclusive.

Festus
28-07-2007, 22:33
You pretty much ignore that p.7 refers to the character section which lists which monster rules they follow (movement) then?
This is not true: p. 7 onlöy says that some characters follow some rules for monsters.

According to my BRB including the errata, it is a lie to state that characters only follow the Movement rules for monsters.

Festus

Sherlocko
28-07-2007, 22:58
It is not a lie. It is just the only rules we are certain they follow, everything else someone say that they follow are based on how they feel like seeing the word "some".

Festus
28-07-2007, 22:59
According to my BRB including the errata, it is a lie to state that characters only follow the Movement rules for monsters.

It is not a lie. It is just the only rules we are certain they follow, everything else someone say that they follow are based on how they feel like seeing the word "some".
Still it is a lie: Those are not the only rules they follow. Nothing in the BRB says so.

Festus

DarkTerror
28-07-2007, 23:04
Still it is a lie: Those are not the only rules they follow. Nothing in the BRB says so.

Festus

Nothing in the BRB or Hordes of Chaos army book explicitly states that a Greater Daemon IS a monster, no?

So therefore it is NOT to be considered a monster. It's very simple.

metro_gnome
29-07-2007, 00:16
page 71... "Larger than Ogre-sized" = monster...
or is your contention that GDs do not have US equal to their starting wounds?

Hulabalo
29-07-2007, 00:56
@ all the people who said rune of the true beast will effect a greater deamon

If you think about it, it’s very daft for a Bloodthirster to be affected by ‘rune of the true beast’.

The item states it causes its effect because ‘It has devolved its wearer into nothing more than a ravenous mass of muscle and fang. Even the strongest beast will cower before the unbridled ferocity of this raging predator’.

Now let’s look at what it says about the Bloodthirster ‘Their bloodlust extends far beyond mortal comprehension, and they will attack anything within their reach with incredible ferocity. They do not know fear, other then of their dread master Khorne, and will charge headlong into the foe, regardless of cost or consequence’.

Do you honestly believe that a bloodthirsty Bloodthirster:D, a walking demi-god of war, will cower before a Beastman with this rune? Get with the fluff man!

This kind of rule lawyering is totally against the spirit of the game, any decent players will see that the Bloodthirster will try to (and probably succeed) rip this ‘raging predator’ apart and gobble it down for breakfast.

Lord Steven
29-07-2007, 09:19
Guy recently answered this one and other "grey area-questions"

They are characters!

Shaggoth = monster
shaggoth champ = character
greater daemons = Characters
Treeman = monster
Treeman ancient = Character

If one of these (or similar) takes up a rare choice its a monster
If they take up a lord slot (or other character slots) they are characters

It´s on the web page called herdstone. A beasts of chaos forum.

A bloodthirster takes a Lord and rare slot.

Sherlocko
29-07-2007, 09:28
Still it is a lie: Those are not the only rules they follow. Nothing in the BRB says so.

Festus

Nothing in the rulebook say that they follow any other rule than those either.

Festus
29-07-2007, 09:56
Nothing in the rulebook says, which rules they follow, and that still is the problem.

If there were a way for us to decide, we would not have this discussion. But it surely is more than the Movement rules for Monsters they follow. It is the LoS rules at least, too. And the fact that it has front, flank, and rear, like a Monster, and US-rules ... see BRB, p.58f, as the Monster's rules are not that overly large or complex.

The only rule a Character who is simultaneously a Monster does not follow AFAI see it, is, that he may indeed join units, in the same vein as a Monster ridden by a Character (as this is another Modeltype combining the properties of a Monster and a CHaracter).

I can only refer you to post #21 of this thread.

Sherlocko
29-07-2007, 10:57
Indeed that is the problem, wich pretty much makes none of us really right when it comes to items like rune or collar. However, when there is such a grey area and one of the top dogs from GW tell us how we should play it, I would assume that would be a pretty good reason to play it that way.

khorne666
29-07-2007, 11:08
or is your contention that GDs do not have US equal to their starting wounds?

I'm sorry but this was one issue I was hoping to bring up any way, if they do have US equal to their starting wounds then you have a US 10 unclean one trotting around the battlefield and I personallydon't think that US 10 is plausable for a single model. Although, on actually looking at the army book I would have to say that this is right as none of the have the special rule 'US 3'. I would have to say that the rune of true beast is designed for lesser, unitelligent beasts, where as the greater daemons are all incredibly powerful, intelligent demigods.

Festus
29-07-2007, 11:48
Well, a GUO actually is US 10 :eyebrows:

and it has got nothing to do with intelligence... it is just the rules fact that something is (or counts as - or uses the rules of) a Monster.

Festus

gjnoronh
29-07-2007, 13:50
I have a thread on the DL forum reviewing everyplace in the BRB where the rules for monster are described

http://z7.invisionfree.com/wyrmling_x/index.php?showtopic=2259

Bottom line of course it doesn't tell us who what where. We can argue about it until we are blue in the face - but it doesn't define "some."

Page 7 lists Daemon princes as following some of the rules for monsters - it doesn't explicitly in RAW tell us about Greater daemons, but if you believe in Intent vs RAW then greater daemons are certainly "bigger" more "monstrous things"

However it's worth noting that Ogre Tyrants and Doombulls are the same US as a DP, and are probably from an intent standpoint as "monstrous" as a Daemon prince.

Of course "some rules" really gets messy when you realize that a nurgle DP or an ogre tyrant has 5 wounds - does it then break ranks because it's US =wounds? I'm sure folks playing Nurgle DP's would happily upgrade to being a flying rank breaker even if they couldn't join their PB units anymore. I'm sure the Ogre tyrant players would as well.

skank
29-07-2007, 13:59
I think that the fact the BRB was changed from saying some characters follow the rules to just 'some' of the rules implies they are not monster if characters.
What would be the point otherwise.

Personally i think the catagories should be mutually exclusive as much as possible.

Atrahasis
29-07-2007, 14:59
What would be the point otherwise.The most obvious answer is that characters have express permission to join units while monsters have an express prohibition against joining units, which would mean you'd have to roll off every time you wanted your GUO to join a unit of Plaguebearers.

khorne666
29-07-2007, 16:49
Of course "some rules" really gets messy when you realize that a nurgle DP or an ogre tyrant has 5 wounds - does it then break ranks because it's US =wounds? I'm sure folks playing Nurgle DP's would happily upgrade to being a flying rank breaker even if they couldn't join their PB units anymore. I'm sure the Ogre tyrant players would as well.

I would like to point out that for the DP at least, it has the special rule 'US 3' so it's US will never equal it's wounds.

skank
29-07-2007, 19:41
The most obvious answer is that characters have express permission to join units while monsters have an express prohibition against joining units, which would mean you'd have to roll off every time you wanted your GUO to join a unit of Plaguebearers.

That is the point i was trying to make (the problems caused with characters also using all monster rules having to be changed) and why a character is not a monster

Dragon of the Pants
29-07-2007, 22:56
Wow, I really opened up a can of worms here, didn't I? :P

I must say, the argument that seems to be making to most amount of sense is that Greater Daemons count as monsters for purposes of Movement, LoS, and US, but they are not Monsters per se, and therefore will not be affected by things that only affect "monsters."

Festus
30-07-2007, 07:13
I must say, the argument that seems to be making to most amount of sense is that Greater Daemons count as monsters for purposes of Movement, LoS, and US, but they are not Monsters per se, and therefore will not be affected by things that only affect "monsters."
So they follow ALL the rules for Monsters bar one single rule (which - incidentally - is overruled by them being characters, too), and they still are not Monsters?

So everything which does not follow the whole set of rules of one particular category - even if only in one single point - is not part of said category?

Festus

skank
30-07-2007, 12:00
There is no definition of when one unit becomes multiple catagories (how many rule it must follow) or how many catagories a unit can belong to. A stegadon is a monster/warmachine/chariot? It's just down to personal preferance?
The rules for movement/combat/shooting are used by all catagories equaly.

Ninsaneja
30-07-2007, 13:19
There is no definition of when one unit becomes multiple catagories (how many rule it must follow) or how many catagories a unit can belong to. A stegadon is a monster/warmachine/chariot? It's just down to personal preferance?
>>A stegadon is ONLY a monster. Please read your rules again!
The rules for movement/combat/shooting are used by all catagories equaly.
>>I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Something that uses rules from one type but is clearly another type will be affected by spells as if it was only the type that it actually is.

Atrahasis
30-07-2007, 13:32
Could you please please please use the quote button? Its not complicated and makes reading posts infinitely easier.

Ninsaneja
30-07-2007, 16:06
If it's easier to read as two separate lists of points I will do it that way.

skank
30-07-2007, 16:27
Ninsaneja- If you read my earlier replys you will see i am not of the opinion that a unit can be more than one catagory. I know a Stegadon is a monster, i was pointing out it could be seen as being in multiple catagory types hence the question marks. I guess i was being a bit sarcastic.

I was saying that the rules throughout the BRB are used by all types of unit catagories (a single ogre uses monster movement dispite being infantry) and are not a good indication of what catagory a unit belongs to.

Maybe not clear but i did'nt think anybody would belive i was seriously saying it was personal preferance. Although that does seem to be the way some people would have it.

Festus
30-07-2007, 21:01
Hi

Atrahasis is right.

You can qoute things better if using the quote-tags: (quote)text(/quote) replace () by [] , even multiple sentences split.

Festus

Negativemoney
30-07-2007, 23:02
I agree with Festus 100% that they are infact both Monsters and Characters. Gav even agreed with this notion.

He also made it clear that When (and who knows when) the updated FAQ comes out it will state that they are Monsters and Characters, However they are unaffected by magic items or spells that would limit their abilities as their will power is stronger than that of the lesser beings of their kind.

Exalted Scar-vet
31-07-2007, 00:42
I think it just doesnt make sense that a 5 pt iteam can stop a 650 pt thing from hurting it.

skank
31-07-2007, 00:47
You mean this?
The organizers of the Necro sent off a list of questions supplied by attendees to Gav for clarification.

Q: Does the Rune of the True Beast affect monstrous characters (i.e. treeman ancients, greater daemons, shaggoth champs)?

A: No, the are characters. Note that, for example, this means a Shaggoth is affected, while a Shaggoth Champion isn't. A character 'monster' is assumed to have the strength of mind and will power to resist these sorts of things, while most monsters are more mindless and instinctual.

Gav got a few of his own rule wrong though, like.
Q: If a stone thrower or flame template covers a stegadon, does all the crew get hit?
A: Warhammer, P61: “If a monster has two or more riders. . . then randomize any hits among the two riders.” Only on skink is hit.

So not exactly reliable.
In the last FAQ they changed the wording from monsterous character using the monster rules to using 'some' of the monster rules. You think they are going to backtrack again?

Exalted Scar-vet
31-07-2007, 17:02
Aha i knew it, Where did you find that btw?

skank
31-07-2007, 23:43
They are on Herdstone (great site) along with all the other 'clarifications' from Gav.