Page 1 of 1

Monstrous Characters

Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 7:48 pm
by Furiouscado
Alright I have a bit of a debate going on in my local club and said I'd post here for a third party ruling. I have my ruling, but I'm just putting the questions here so I don't make it biased.

First off, officially, can a character count as a monster? Not dragons, like Slann, Treeman ancients, etc

Secondly, if the above is true, can you target a Slann, Treeman ancient, etc.. with "beast cowers"

The following has been noted in our debate:
1) the ruling for "monsters" uses a Slann as its example
2) According to: http://warhammer.org.uk/PhP/viewtopic.php?t=44352 characters can never be monsters.


Thanks

Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:25 pm
by Tjd
The ruling the for "monsters" in the rulebook uses the slaan for the example for monster movement. I actually like the interpretation of the rules from that link in that "Truly large characters only follow some of the rules
for monsters – namely movement rules" which is exactly what i just stated with that the slaan is being used as an example for monster movement. I truly dont see the slaan, or treeman ancient or any other large character for that matter being considered a beast, they are a character's, not only in the fact that they dont have to be ridden by another character to control them, but also because if you look at it fluff wise do you see a slaan or treeman ancient being affected in the same way that a horse or possibly cold one would be affected?

So yes large characters use some rules of monsters, but i dont think they would be considered monsters for the purposes of determining whether they would be affected the "beast cowers"

hope that helped and wasnt confusing or anything. :D

Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:44 pm
by Kinslayer
Yeah i seriosuly doubt a slann would pause at a spell trying to make him cower, he would probably just pause to bring down some thunder bolts on you if you dared try it ;)

Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:08 pm
by Furiouscado
@TJD - that really didn't help because either they're monsters or not.

And I play lizzies, so I would hope that my slann would be more powerful than beast cowers, but it's magic dudes.. it would just be a badass casting of beast cowers to overcome a slann, but I can't find the rules that say they aren't affected.

Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:24 pm
by D'jihurccen
Actually i think he answered the question well, he gave you the short answer, (no they don't count as monsters) and also explained that the slann is used in the example under the reasoning that while its not a monster, it is truly monstrous, and therefore uses some of the same rules for movement.

Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:57 pm
by Furiouscado
can someone give me a BRB page that says characters can never be monsters? or an official FAQ/errata?

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:01 am
by Linda lobsta defenda
A lot of it is based on the Beastmen FAQ.

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:01 pm
by Ant
And Greater deamons and deamon princes are exceptions, since it says on page 30 ofthe deamon book that they are characters but also monsters.

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:09 pm
by Kinslayer
Basically yes/no answers to the three questions that seem to be coming forward here:
are they actually monsters? no
are they affected by beast cowers? no
do they use monster movement? yes

I dont know if the BRB says this exactly, you probably have to read between the lines a bit. Perhaps its just common sense, you said yourself it would have to be a pretty 'badass casting' of beast cowers to overcome a slann and that is really just not going to happen is it.