PDA

View Full Version : Need GW's definition of a "Monster"



knightime98
08-08-2007, 05:29
With the Beasts Cowers spell, it says that you can cast it on a ridden or unridden "monster". Along with chariots, swarms, and so on.

What is then a "Monster"... I went to cast the spell on a Gorger and my opponent said that it is not a Monster.... I then asked him what it is if it is not a monster... He looked dumb founded like I wasn't supposed to ask that question...

It took him a minute then he said, well a Giant or Gryphon is a Monster....

So, I'm thinking the definition simply goes by the base size..

If the base size is 50mm or larger it is a "monster"
if it is a 40mm base or smaller then it is a creature....

Let me know what your reference is if you have the answer to this one...

sulla
08-08-2007, 06:30
Well, eagles are named as monsters in the rulebook, and pegasus are ridden monsters but both have 40mm bases... so your definition is not right but as to what is... ?

Masque
08-08-2007, 07:26
Any non-chariot, multi-wound model with one or more other models riding it is a monster. Any model specifically mentioned in it's own rules or in the BRB to be a monster is a monster. Besides these two situations it is somewhat vague as to what is a monster and what is not. In the case of Gorgers they are probably ogre-sized infantry rather than monsters.

Gorbad Ironclaw
08-08-2007, 07:40
Gorgers would likely be ogre-sized infantry, yes.

Monsters are any single model where it's US is determined by it's number of starting wounds. I believe that's the usual definition?


The real fun starts when you get to the monsters that are also characters... :p

Yohn
08-08-2007, 07:50
This is very confusing in my mind, if a dragonogre is alone is he a monster then, same for ogres alone (like hereos),trolls etc, arn't the monsters to? It is kind of wierd that a great squigis classifide as a monster if they are not? :eyebrows:

Falkman
08-08-2007, 08:23
Dragon Ogres, Trolls and other such creatures that move in units of models with 40mm bases are all infantry.
I would classify the Gorger as an infantry model too.

Masque
08-08-2007, 08:43
Monsters are any single model where it's US is determined by it's number of starting wounds. I believe that's the usual definition?

This is a rule of monsters, but does not in fact define them. A monster is perfectly capable of having a rule that overrides it's default US equal to wounds rule and a non-monster could easily have such a rule without becoming a monster itself.

DeathlessDraich
08-08-2007, 10:05
I agree with Masque that the rules are inadequate.

The question has to be re-phrased as:

GW needs a defintion of Monsters.:p

Considering that a whole chapter is dedicated to Monsters, the allusions to Monsters in the rules are riddled with ambiguities.

Unless, the Monster (or part Monster which has crept into the 7th ed) is specifically mentioned, roll a dice.

Gorbad Ironclaw
08-08-2007, 17:13
This is very confusing in my mind, if a dragonogre is alone is he a monster then, same for ogres alone (like hereos),trolls etc, arn't the monsters to? It is kind of wierd that a great squigis classifide as a monster if they are not? :eyebrows:


No, they are not monsters. They are ogre classed infantry. Not monsters at all.

Gorbad Ironclaw
08-08-2007, 17:15
This is a rule of monsters, but does not in fact define them. A monster is perfectly capable of having a rule that overrides it's default US equal to wounds rule and a non-monster could easily have such a rule without becoming a monster itself.


It's possible I suppose, but I can't think of a single model where that's the case.

theunwantedbeing
08-08-2007, 17:16
It would be nice if things were given a type.
ie. monster,chariot,cavalry,infantry,character
That sort of thing.

And state within each rulebook what rules override what.
Ie. greater daemons being both monsters and character's,state which rules that apply to them where there is a conflict.

Here's hopeing for 8th edition ^_^

Masque
08-08-2007, 18:19
It's possible I suppose, but I can't think of a single model where that's the case.

I do know of one and I'll mention it even though I'm sure it'll start a different argument.

Slann have 6 wounds but are only US 5.

Ninsaneja
09-08-2007, 00:11
And Slann are used as the example picture for a charging monster (god knows why, anyone charging a unit with a lone Slann must have something wrong with their heads.)

theunwantedbeing
09-08-2007, 01:40
Convenience.

GW has no other images of that type of an unridden 50mm based model.
The Slann was the only one,so they used that.
It doesnt mean that slann are monsters because of that.

They use orc boys for the skirmishers pictures,clearly means arc boys are skirmishers by that logic.

Also the shaggoth has a stated unit strength while being a monster.
As does the stegadon.

You cant base something as being a monster on size alone,a pegasus is a monster despite being the same size as an ogre.

knightime98
09-08-2007, 05:48
Slann is a Lord Character not a Monster.....

Don't know why they couldn't have used a Tomb Scorpion... I believe they are Monsters.....

The BRB even says that Monsters fight alone and may never join units. A Slann can join units as it is a character.... So, once again - GW contradicts itself..... How wonderful!!

Menset
09-08-2007, 07:34
Gorgers can't join units and are lone figures, so then will they be monsters or not?

Masque
09-08-2007, 14:24
Slann is a Lord Character not a Monster.....

Not everyone agrees those are exclusive categories. I don't.


Don't know why they couldn't have used a Tomb Scorpion... I believe they are Monsters.....

We don't know for sure one way or another about Tomb Scorpions.


Gorgers can't join units and are lone figures, so then will they be monsters or not?

The Gorger special rules do not cause them to be monsters or not to be monsters. They are one of the many, many, many undefined troop types where you and your opponent are forced to use your best judgement or simply roll a die.

mav1971
09-08-2007, 17:54
A Slaann, Greater Demon, Shaggoth Champion are examples of large characters not monsters. While a normal shaggoth or a dragon are examples of monsters. Ogres, minotaurs and so forth are infantry.

sulla
09-08-2007, 19:38
A Slaann, Greater Demon, Shaggoth Champion are examples of large characters not monsters.Assuming that you can't be both a character and a monster, of course...:angel:

gjnoronh
09-08-2007, 21:54
bottom line there isn't a GW definition nor a universally agreed upon definition by players.

I've collected all the rules quotes I'm aware of regarding the definition of monsters here:

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

hiredgoonthug
11-08-2007, 05:07
The Slann is a monster.

7th edition army books do not specify if something is a monster, so you have to figure it out on your own. Our rulebook states that some Characters are also monsters. A Slann is a multiwound model, on a 40mm or larger base.

Monsters cannot join units normally, but if there is an excpetion in the army book you are allowed to (Lizardmen can put a Slann with Temple Guard, The Fey can have her bodyguard, etc.).

Greater Deamons ARE monsters. So those of you who put the GUO in a unit of Plaguebearers, you're cheating.

When the books for the armies in dispute are reprinted for the new edition you can change my mind. Otherwise, any single models on a 40mm base or larger running around are monsters.

knightime98
11-08-2007, 06:41
The Slann is a monster.

Otherwise, any single models on a 40mm base or larger running around are monsters.

1) The Slann is a monster?? <--- how did you come up with this.....

2) 40mm base, did you just pick the base size out of the air... Why not a 25mm base???

It seems to me that you are for convenience sake picking numbers and throwing them around.

I don't agree with the first statement of the slann being a monster...
I do agree with the 40mm base size or bigger being a monster...

However, this is all semantics with you having to rules lawyer all day for the set up you are choosing to side with....

The hard facts are that GW leaves it up to us to figure it out or decide which is the case.

In a nutshell, what I can figure is that;
1 - Monsters fight alone
2- They can not join units
3- have multiple wounds
4- is in question, but assumed to be on atleast a 40mm base or larger.
5- Some monsters have the option for characters to ride them.

It is my opinion that the Slann does not meet this criteria - mainly they are allowed to join units of Saurus or Temple Guard...

WLBjork
11-08-2007, 08:31
You missed one Knightime98.

It's in the characters section on page 7.


Some characters like the Daemon Prince of Chaos, are so large and powerful that they follow the rules for monsters!

That has since been subject to an erratta to insert "some of" between "follow" and "the".

Of course, GW never specified what they mean by "some". In context it is likely to mean that they can join units, but follow the rules for monsters otherwise, but it's not currently possible to prove that.

NurgleNuts
15-08-2007, 16:54
I would say a monster is anything that doesn't use two legs (other than dragons with their teeny Trex arms).... problem solved!!!:D Happy Gaming!!!

Minion
15-08-2007, 17:08
well ogres arent actually monsters so they should be infantry

knightime98
15-08-2007, 20:15
Ogres are allowed to form units - Monsters are not....
So, Ogres are safe from being a "monster"....

Masque
15-08-2007, 22:37
Ogres are allowed to form units - Monsters are not....
So, Ogres are safe from being a "monster"....

Monsters can't (normally) join units but there is nothing preventing them from forming them. War Hydras are certainly part of a multi-model unit formed of a Hydra and two Apprentices.

hiredgoonthug
16-08-2007, 03:37
The Lizardmen book is 6th edition, so a Slann joining a unit and being a monster is a moot point. We're in a different game version. There are exceptions to every rule. If the Slann is a monster and it says he can join a unit then he can join a unit. He is still a large target, and can still be singled out. No point arguing if he is or isnt a monster.

alextroy
16-08-2007, 04:34
I'll take a stab here. My unscientific, cannot be proven correct, way to define a monster:

1) If you are on a 40" or greater base and cannot be purchased as a unit of more then 1 model, you are a Monster.

2) If you are subject to the Monster and Handler rule, you are a monster (but your handlers are not).

3) If you are a character, you are not a monster.

4) If you are a mount with more then 1 wound, you are a monster.

Sovereign
16-08-2007, 04:53
1. Giants of Albion are purchased as a unit of 3 models,
2. ignore Monster and Handler rules,
3. are named, but not Characters.

I like the 50+mm base, W4+ & Terror, but agree that GW should define Monster as a keyword for all models that are Monsters.

alextroy
16-08-2007, 05:02
There are always exceptions. Proves the rule, you know :)

In this case, the Giant of Albion are purchased as 3 models, but they are Giants and everyone knows Giants are monsters.

Nkari
16-08-2007, 09:28
I for one cant belive GW does not print in the army books.. stuff like this..

All characters are still characters in adition to the following rules.

Orc, black orc on foot = infantry, 25mm by 25mm base
Orc and savage orc boarboys, orc characters on boars = cavalry, 25mm by 50mm base
Orc Hero and lord choice on chariot = chariot, 50mm by 10mm base
Orc Chariot = chariot, 50mm by 10mm base
Orc Lord on Wyvern = Monster, 75mm by 75mm base

IT would make things sooooooooooooo much easier.. and all it does it take up 1 more page, or a 1/3rd of a page depending on how big you make it etc.. it should be right next to the summary page.. grrr

hiredgoonthug
16-08-2007, 10:18
The Greater Deamons are all characters and all monsters.... it says right in the rulebook that characters can be monsters.

Sherlocko
16-08-2007, 11:50
Nope, it says that some characters follow some of the rules for monsters. :)

Urgat
16-08-2007, 12:27
I for one cant belive GW does not print in the army books.. stuff like this..

All characters are still characters in adition to the following rules.

Orc, black orc on foot = infantry, 25mm by 25mm base
Orc and savage orc boarboys, orc characters on boars = cavalry, 25mm by 50mm base
Orc Hero and lord choice on chariot = chariot, 50mm by 10mm base
Orc Chariot = chariot, 50mm by 10mm base
Orc Lord on Wyvern = Monster, 75mm by 75mm base

IT would make things sooooooooooooo much easier.. and all it does it take up 1 more page, or a 1/3rd of a page depending on how big you make it etc.. it should be right next to the summary page.. grrr

I always wondered about that too. They could just make a couple simple charts and add the relevant entries into the units so we don't have to wonder about such things. Something like "undead", "infantry", "cavalry", "charriot", "warmachine" and so on.
Too simple and handy for GW, I suppose.

alextroy
17-08-2007, 21:51
IT would make things sooooooooooooo much easier.. and all it does it take up 1 more page, or a 1/3rd of a page depending on how big you make it etc.. it should be right next to the summary page.. grrr
The sad thing is it wouldn't even take up that much space. There is plenty of unused space in the Army section to add the information with each unit's entry.