Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I know that "what is a monster" is not exactly well defined in the BRB or Lizardmen army book, so I wanted the dakka community's opinion on whether or not Salamanders count as "monsters."

On one hand, they are on 40mm bases, just like Ogres. Monsters are defined as being "larger than Ogre sized."

On the other hand, Great Eagles are also on 40mm bases, and they are defined as monsters. Also, Salamanders take Monster Reaction tests.

If they are monsters, this means they can break ranks if they flank or rear a regiment, which is pretty dirty conisdering how awesome Salamanders are without this ability (skirmish, cause fear, auto-hitting with an average of 15 shots a turn...) Comments welcome!

Zoned

Zoned wrote:I know that "what is a monster" is not exactly well defined in the BRB or Lizardmen army book, so I wanted the dakka community's opinion on whether or not Salamanders count as "monsters."

On one hand, they are on 40mm bases, just like Ogres. Monsters are defined as being "larger than Ogre sized."

On the other hand, Great Eagles are also on 40mm bases, and they are defined as monsters. Also, Salamanders take Monster Reaction tests.

If they are monsters, this means they can break ranks if they flank or rear a regiment, which is pretty dirty conisdering how awesome Salamanders are without this ability (skirmish, cause fear, auto-hitting with an average of 15 shots a turn...) Comments welcome!

Zoned

You make life easier for all parties if you consider them a unit of skirmishers (apart from taking reaction test when all skinks bite the dust), as monster and handler rules work poorly with multiple monster units.

They are not monsters.

From the Mouth of Gavin Thorpe:

10) How do you classify Monsterous characters? Base size? Can they be affected by spells that target monsters? (IE: Beast Cowers)

GAV
A Monster is, generally, a model that is fielded on its own or as a mount, has multiple wounds and has a 40mm square or larger base. The only exceptions are Hydras and Salamanders, which come with handlers but are monsters. Ogres, Minotaurs, etc are infantry. We are currently looking at publishing an update of the "base size" chart on the web or in WD, with added categorization on infantry/ cavalry/ monsters, etc

Edit: Found the quote I remembered as well, also from Gav Thorpe:

3. Salamanders. C'mon, a Salamander is a monster. Quite apart from the fact that it's a dinosaur that spits fiery acid, it's rules include, "Salamanders ands their Skink Handlers follow the rules for skirmishers" and, "Skink Handlers guide the Salamanders into combat." If the Skinks are Handlers, and there's special rules for Monsters and Handlers that are pretty much the same as the rules for the unit, which bit is left to be the monster? "If they fail this test they must roll on the Monster reaction table…" is another good indication that Salamanders are monsters! :roll:

Viperion

As soon as GW puts words to that effect into an actual rulebook, where I can show them to an opponent at a tournament, they'll be official.

As it stands, Sallies have the Controlled Creatures rule instead, which is similar to M & H, but not the same.

The M & H rules are clearly not written with a unit of multiple monsters in mind, given their LOS rules (90 degree arc from the monster).

Additionally, playing Salamanders using the Monsters & Handlers rules would allow some absurd abuses and contradictions, such as using the skink handlers to march-block and block enemy movement, which your opponent can't do a thing about as all charges are measured to the monster; you're not allowed to charge the handlers.

So Chaoslord and Mauleed say "no," Viperion and Mannahnin say "yes?"

BTW, one of my opponents plays Lizardmen, and he uses his Salamanders ruthlessly in this manner, which is why I ask.

Zoned wrote:So Chaoslord and Mauleed say "no," Viperion and Mannahnin and the guy who wrote Tomb Kings and other rulebooks and actually works for Games Workshop say "yes?"

Fixed

Viperion

Well if you're going to quote Gav, don't forget this one:

"Nothing I say or write on the internet is official. Use your rulebook".

Gav's opinion has zero value in any rules discussion. Even though he writes them, he doesn't actually know them, nor does he really care. If he were in this thread he'd examine things and say "Ed's right, the rules don't allow them to be monsters. But that's how we play it. Maybe we'll fix it in the future."


Anyway, here are the rules issues:

From the rules for monsters:

"These normally move and fight individually...."

"Each monster is, in effect, a unit of one model"

Monsters and handlers:

"Some rare units are composed of a monster that is goaded into battle by a small group of handlers"

So clearly the mechanics of the game simply do not allow a unit composed of multiple monsters.

And if sallies were monsters, you realize that they'd explicitly be allowed to break ranks. Good luck convincing your opponent that your sallies break ranks and you win the game because 'Gav said so on the intarwebs.'

I'm all for the change, as I'm a lizardman player and it would make my army hard as nails. But until it's actually a rule and not internet rumor, I'm going to simply follow the rules as written and not take a significant advantage to which I'm not entitled.

Zoned wrote:So Chaoslord and Mauleed say "no," Viperion and Mannahnin say "yes?"

BTW, one of my opponents plays Lizardmen, and he uses his Salamanders ruthlessly in this manner, which is why I ask.

I believe Ragnar was saying 'no'.

Ed is correct, I was most certainly saying they are not monsters.

Viperion has fallen into the classic logical fallacy of the Appeal to Authority, without taking into consideration either the exact wording of the rules in question, or the disastrous consequences his interpretation could have on the game. Salamanders are already one of the best units in Warhammer, and arguably overpowered. Classifying them as Monsters & Handlers would both make them much MORE powerful, and create more broken and abusive situations.

I've been reading this, wondering if I should say anything. I have a copy of the 2004 Chronicles, this is what it says on page 115. They list Dark Elf War Hydras as an example of a 'Monsters and Handlers' unit.

-> Not ranked up, but do not count as Skirmishers.
-> 90deg arcs on the monster itself for it's own and opposing charges.
-> Forms up in close combat same as Skirmishers.
-> Move at their own movement value so long as within 1" of each other.
-> If a character ....

Then from the Lizardmen book for Salamanders
Skirmishers: Salamanders and their Skink Handlers use the rules for Skirmishers.
as mentioned above,
Controlled Creature: blah blah, including taking a leadership test and a roll on the Monster Reaction table if the handlers are slain.

Now it seems that Salamanders are meant to be interpreted differently from Dark Elf War Hydras (the unit is not skirmishers vs the unit is skirmishers) so I would say that War Hydras do break ranks but Salamanders do not. For instance Salamanders have the 360deg arc from being a Skirmisher that is presumably not meant (RAI) to be mixed with breaking ranks etc.

You've got it exactly.

Well, thanks everybody for the page references and input!