A possible way to kill hydra handlers...?

[Guinea pig hydra]

You see the thing is the BRB for 8th states that Monsters and Handlers models (which in the DE AB the Hydra is classed as) are to be used for all intents and purposes as the monster only. Therefore the Beastmasters are no longer considered to play any role. They are not active models. Just because it is on a little square base does not mean that it is a model. Therefore everything is tested on the Hydra, not the now irrelevant Beastmasters.

[Darklady]

I take it as each model takes the test as the spell says.
I hydra fails, it dies. If one beastmaster fails, it dies.

A beastmaster failing wouldn't kill the hydra. Just makes sense to me as it specifies in the spells as "all models in the units" and models hit by template


Thoughts? Opinions?
Makes sense?
Or am I crazy and trolling like some people say

The bold portion is where your problem is. The Hydra and Handlers are not separate models. You don't place them (handlers) in BtB in CC (BRB), all attacks against them are worked out agains the Hydra (BRB), and any wounds caused to the Hydra are not randomized between Hydra and Handlers (DE AB). They are nothing more than the steeds on a chariot would be essentially.

[Dalamar]

Each model takes test

Hydra is a single model with multiple profiles (like, say, cold one knight)

You use the highest stat available unless otherwise stated (like Demon Nurgle spells making you test T on lowest available).

Highest I from the multiple profiles of the Hydra model (The Hydra model consists of the Hydra itself and two Beastmasters) is 5

Or are you saying that a, say, pit of shades hitting cold one chariot removes it automatically because chariot has no Initiative? In fact, chariot tests on I6

[Blondshade]

Makes sense to me. T is no initiative because it is so chained down and has trouble moving. Same way they cant stomp.

I would argue a pit would kill it, bu a character on he back tests seperate

[Aerrone]

Hydra is a single model with multiple profiles (like, say, cold one knight)

Here's where I have to disagree. The Monster and Handlers rule tells us to "ignore <the beastmasters> for most gaming purposes, treating the monster itself as the extent of the unit".

Thus, the Hydra is a unit consisting of one model (the Hydra) and, as explained further in the Monster and Handlers rule, two "battlefield marker or counter"(s). The "model" has its own, single, set of characteristics. The "battlefield marker or counter"(s) have their own, single, set of characteristics.

You use the highest stat available unless otherwise stated (like Demon Nurgle spells making you test T on lowest available).

Highest I from the multiple profiles of the Hydra model (The Hydra model consists of the Hydra itself and two Beastmasters) is 5

The highest I from actual models in the unit is 2 (the Hydra). The I of 5 for the two battlefield marker/counters (Beastmasters) is "ignored for most gaming purposes".

The Monster and Handlers rules provides exactly three situations in which the handlers are not ignored:

1) When the monster suffers an unsaved wound, the wound could be randomized onto one of the handlers instead. (Our AB Errata/FAQ overrides this situation for the War Hydra)
2) If the handlers are all gone, the monster must take a Monster Reaction test. (Irrevelvant to the War Hydra, as per #1)
3) The handlers are able to direct their attacks to any enemy in base contact with their monster.

Otherwise, they are "ignored for most gaming purposes". How do we know what constitues "most gaming purposes"? Well, all gaming purposes apart from any exceptions listed in the Monster and Handlers rule would certainly seem to qualify as "most" (unless, somehow, the number of exceptions was greater than 50% of all gaming purposes, which they are not in this case).

Furthermore, Cavalry and Chariots both have a rule within their rules called "Split Profile" which deals with how to handle their multiple characteristics. Characteristic tests are not specifically addressed, however. Nevertheless, it makes these two unit types a poor comparison to the Monster and Handlers situation when a similar rule was not added. This could be because Monster and Handlers is a Special Rule, not a Unit Type.

Or are you saying that a, say, pit of shades hitting cold one chariot removes it automatically because chariot has no Initiative? In fact, chariot tests on I6

The rules for chariots do not have text stating that the I for the mounts or crew are to be "ignored for most gaming purposes". Thus, they fall under the rules given for characteristic tests and models with multiple values for the same characteristic.

The key point of my argument here is that the "model" has a single set of characteristics. The second set of characteristics belong to a group of "battlefield marker or counter"(s), not the "model".

Feel free to continue the debate, but I for one will following everything I've said here until GW clarifies otherwise.

If nothing else, the Hydra is already pretty powerful and undercosted. The exceptions given to it in our FAQ were completely unnecessary and only served to make the monster more powerful (never having to take Monster Reactions tests) thus intensifying how undercosted it is. (Greater access to flaming attacks mitigates this slightly, but I still think we come out on the winning end). I don't think we need any more advantages for this unit.

Ultimately though, this really should be addressed in an FAQ (preferably the one for the BRB) by GW as soon as possible, so as to remove any ambiguity.

[Calisson]

Blondshade, everyone understands now clearly how you play Dwellers against hydra. It would be trolling only if you mentioned it once more after I acknowledged that.
This is not crazy, that is just what too quick a reading will naturally lead to. Anyway, nobody forces you to play it differently if you choose so (especially since it is against your interest and you have a strong winning record already).

You need to understand that the consensus here, obtained after a thorough discussion, is that, because of the combination of monster and handler rules in the rulebook and hydra rules in the army book, the hydra and its handlers must be treated exaclty like a chariot and its charioteers:
- a single model matters (the hydra / the chariot)
- in melee, all models fight (hydra+handlers, chariot beasts/charioteers)
- if requiring to test, the best value is used (hydra/chariot T, handlers/charioteers I).

Now that you know what is the consensus, reached among seasoned and reasonable gamers, you can either
- ignore it and play as you wish, and not raise the topic anymore (that would be trolling)
- try to understand why everybody else seems to adopt a different position than yours; there is no reason not to be able to understand clear explanation... as long as you're willing to listen.

[Blondshade]

I'm just having a discussion because it seems like everyone here has a slightly different opinion on how it should work. Just putting all the ideas out there

[Auere]

"We ignore them for most gaming purpose, treating the monster itself as the extend of the unit".

This is a very vague desciption, but all we can know for sure is that the handlers do not count towards the hydras base size or any measuring. Actually this is very similar to warmachines.
Under the assumption that this would mean that the war hydra works a bit like a warmaschine when it comes to its "crew", it would mean that the war hydra would only be required to take ONE characteristic tests if hit by f.x. dwellers below.
But unlike in the warmachine section, it is not stated whos characteristics are used against these tests in the case of a hydra and its handlers, which means that we will have to follow the basic rule: The best characteristic is used.

[Dalamar]

"Ignore for most gaming purposes" sure.
Let me ask you a question then Aerrone.

If your hydra panics do you use Hydra's or Beastmasters' Ld?
If you take Beastmasters' Ld, why do you deny it beastmasters's other stats for other tests? Ld test is a stat test like an I test.
If you use Hydra's Ld, then more power to you, your hydrae must be really vulnerable to panics.

[Aerrone]

If your hydra panics do you use Hydra's or Beastmasters' Ld?
If you take Beastmasters' Ld, why do you deny it beastmasters's other stats for other tests? Ld test is a stat test like an I test.
If you use Hydra's Ld, then more power to you, your hydrae must be really vulnerable to panics.

Good questions. Surprisingly, my Hydra has not been subjected to a Panic test yet in this edition. Shocking, even, because I'm not a good general at all so in theory I should be full of situations where it is forced to test for Panic. (My main WFB army is VC though, so I've played comparatively fewer games with them and probably far less than many generals on this site. In other words, I've been fortunate that this hasn't happened yet.)

By the logic I've already presented, I would have to conceed that only the Hydra's LD is valid. The alternative is picking and choosing which situations I want the handlers to matter for gaming purposes and which situations I find it convenient to ignore them.

When GW realizes that this needs to be cleared up and issues an Errata on it, then we should have all of the clarified rules we'll need to know what to use in such situations. Until then, I suggest you all protect your Hydrae from LD tests as much as possible. I'm not saying I like it any more than any of you do, I just don't see any other more justifiable interpretation of the rules that we have.

[Jl177]

When you read a war machine's crew rules, you see "aren't really a combat unit, per se, we ignore them for most gaming purposes, treating the war machine as the extent of the unit."

Sounds familiar right?

But you still use the crew's leadership; the machine doesn't even have a leadership value.

The beastmaster's leadership is also used in the case of the hydra....just like initiative.....just like strength (hydra's strength). You always use the best characteristic when it comes to taking characteristic tests unless explicitly stated. Why? Because that's what it says in the characteristic test rules; you always take the best available to the model or unit.

[Aerrone]

When you read a war machine's crew rules, you see "aren't really a combat unit, per se, we ignore them for most gaming purposes, treating the war machine as the extent of the unit."

War Machines have a rule called "Split Profile", in which it explicitly states that you always use the M, WS, BS, S, I, A and LD of the crew, and details when you use the T of the machine or the T of the crew. Another rule in the War Machines section, "Characteristic Tests", states that War Machines automatically fail all characteristic tests apart from T and LD. All of this is on pg. 108, the same page as the box-out to which you're referring.

Said box-out indeed instructs us to "ignore <the crew> for most gaming purposes, treating the war machine itself as the extent of the unit." At this point, the crew default to having no rules at all, except for anything within the War Machines rules which dictates their rules and usage.

It is the "Split Profile" rule that restores the War Machine the ability to use the LD of the crew, not the rules given for Characteristic tests.

EDIT: In that last sentence, I'm referring to the general rules for Characteristic Tests on pg. 10 - not the War Machines rule "Characteristic Tests" on pg. 108 - in case there is any confusion as to what I meant. /EDIT

Monster and Handlers does not have a rule like "Split Profile" and so the ability of the handlers to pass their LD to the War Hydra is lost (along with all other normal rules) when we are instructed to "ignore them for most gaming purposes ... " and no other exceptions are made within the M&H rule. The only rules that the handlers have are dictated within the M&H rules and are the only rules that they benefit from. At no point is the ability to use any of the handlers' characteristics instead of the Hydra's restored.

Sorry folks, but at LD 6 (and I 2 for initiative tests, for that matter) maybe the Hydra isn't so undercosted after all.

[Sulla]

I'm with Aerrone on this. I'm sure GW didn't intend it to work like that, but until we're told what 'for most purposes' actually means, we're not actually playing RAW when we use the handlers for anything other than attacks.

(Not a huge issue for our group. Using handlers stats like ridden monsters/chariots was one of the first things we houseruled in this edition, right after banning the powerscroll.)

[Darklady]

So your interpretation is that they don't have handlers at all, but just guys who hang out and poke things. It really confuses me how people argue that RAW says "most gaming purposes" means you don't use them for anything other than close combat and wound absorption. The is no RAW for what "most" means. No indication is made in the following paragraph whether the list is inclusive or exclusive. There are no written rules stating that we ignore the handlers for characteristic tests. Any argument that they are is purely an interpretation. The whole point to handlers is to provide leadership for an otherwise uncontrollable beast. If GW wanted otherwise, why even bother with M&H? I guess this has gone far afield from the OP.

[Carolus]

After reading these agruments I am inclined to put my hydra on the shelf until GW sorts this out.

[Sulla]

So your interpretation is that they don't have handlers at all, but just guys who hang out and poke things. .

My interpretation is that we can only do what the monster and handler rules allow us to do. Ignoring for most purposes is actually a pretty clear instruction. It means ignore for all purposes unless expressly excluded. To interpret it the other way (i.e. that to ignore for most purposes means to only ignore when expressly instructed) is not the way english works.

Do I think this makes the monster and handler rules virtually unworkable as they are currently written? Yes I do.

After reading these agruments I am inclined to put my hydra on the shelf until GW sorts this out.

Just houserule it. It probably effects the hellcannon worse than us anyway since they would need babysitting by the general to be functional, whereas hydras can happily operate in close support of the general.

[Calisson]

Let's analyse before going back to the argument.

1. Analysis.
Reading again the "Monster and Handlers" rule, p.73, I noticed the relevant sentences, only part of which were quoted above:
"we ignore the handlers for most gaming purposes",
"treating the monster as the extent of the unit"
but also
"In addition, the handlers cannot be charged, attacked or otherwise affected separately from their monster" (quite similar to warmachines);
"if they are found blocking movement or LOS, alter their position"
the final sentence refers handlers as one sort of "battlefield marker and counter".
As mentioned, the parallel of wording between warmachine crews and monster's handlers is striking. Lots of cut & paste has been done.

For both units, warmachines and monsters, the accessory models come along with their characteristics.
The general rule is p.10: where a model (or a unit) has more than one value for a characteristic, take the highest.
This is clearly rephrased, along with exceptions, for warmachine models as p.108 "split profile". Even though they are "ignored for most gaming purposes", even though "they are used only to indicate wounds and attacks", in the same page you read that you have to use the crew's M, WS, BS, S, I, A, Ld and save - however, you autofail characteristics tests save T & Ld.
Nothing is indicated about characteristic tests for monster and handlers: there is no exception mentioned.


2. Interpretation.
It seems clear in my eyes (and it is the consensus in D.net) that the models of handlers are to be treated just like warmachine models. The location of the models has not the slightest importance, they are not even blocking LOS!
The only role for the model is to indicate a change of characteristic in the unit:
- for warmachines, remaining models indicates wounds and number of attacks (p.108);
- for monsters, loss of last handler forces a monster test (p.73) (which never happens for a hydra because of the AB rules - to the point that some members have glued the handler models to the monster base); this loss lowers the Ld of the unit.


Those who argue that "ignore for most gaming purpose" prohibits merging the stats should realize that it is contradictory with warmachine rules.

Honestly, I don't see the need for house rules and even less the need to shelf the hydra until a highly unlikely FAQ restated these rules.

[Auere]

The general rule is p.10: where a model (or a unit) has more than one value for a characteristic, take the highest.

Exactly! What seems to be the problem here? The handlers are ignored for "most gaming purposes", namely that only the hydras base size counts. That is the only "gaming purpose" we know they are ignored for!

Does it say that they are ignored for characteristics tests? No. Saying anything else would be interpretation.

What is not interpretation is the rule on page 10: Where a model (or a unit) has more than one value for a characteristic, take the highest.

[Dalamar]

Exactly that, p10 rule clearly says that you still use the best characteristic available to the unit.

War Machines need an exception here because they have more specific rules for characteristic tests (you don't take the best, you take a specific one, and sometimes fail automatically despite crew being actually able to pass, say, I test)

[Aerrone]

I can't say that I've been convinced away from my arguments, but popular opinion is clearly against me on this one so I will cease to argue on behalf of my interpretation.

I do thank you all for endulging me in the discussion.

It does seem that the one thing we all agree on is that the phrase including the word "ignore" in the M&H rules is poorly and ambiguously worded.

I also still believe it is a miss on GW's part not to include some sort of clarification along the lines of "Split Profile" in the M&H rules since War Machines, Cavalry and Chariots all have much more in the way of clarification on the subject than M&H does.

But, enough. I've had my say and it has been found wanting by the majority. So be it. Shall we move on to other matters?

[Blondshade]

The opinions are sooooo different on this topic. this is crazy. some people like me put out their opinions but others feel only they are right. GW needs to fix this

I can't say that I've been convinced away from my arguments, but popular opinion is clearly against me on this one so I will cease to argue on behalf of my interpretation.

I do thank you all for endulging me in the discussion.

It does seem that the one thing we all agree on is that the phrase including the word "ignore" in the M&H rules is poorly and ambiguously worded.

I also still believe it is a miss on GW's part not to include some sort of clarification along the lines of "Split Profile" in the M&H rules since War Machines, Cavalry and Chariots all have much more in the way of clarification on the subject than M&H does.

But, enough. I've had my say and it has been found wanting by the majority. So be it. Shall we move on to other matters?

send me a pm on how you think it works

[L1qw1d]

also- when you make a test with the combined profile req., it makes ONE test with the highest of all models regardless of who makes it.

[Sulla]

also- when you make a test with the combined profile req., it makes ONE test with the highest of all models regardless of who makes it.

There's only one model in a war hydra unit...

[Getwisteerd]

Well, the sentence is
"We ignore the handlers for most gaming purposes, treating the monster as the extent of the unit"

in other words, you treat the monster as the extent of the unit when and only when you ignore the handlers. "Most gaming purposes" is still unclear, but in the case of pit of shades this is not a problem.
There are two possibilities:
a) Pit of shades is one of those situations in which you ignore the handlers, in which case you can't use their initiative as they're being ignored.
b) Pit of shades is not one of those situations in which you ignore the handlers, in which case the hydra can't use the beastmasters' initiative as they are different models.
Either way, you can't use the beastmasters' intiative for pit of shades. Q.E.D. .

In short, if you're using the beastmasters' initiative you're both ignoring the beastmasters and not ignoring the beastmasters at the same time. It should be clear that this is wrong.

[C_freman]

Why are you assuming that not-ignoring the beastmasters means they're different models?

In a chariot or in a cavalry unit you don't ignore the riders and yet they're not different models.