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.

Perhaps I'll come up with more, but these have occurred to me as important for my first game with the new skaven on Wed:

- Is the Vermin Lord in fact a monstrous character? Not simple a monster-who-is-bought-as-a-character, which the text in his entry very confusingly confuses me with? The point seems to be that he can't join units ever, but do they really mean he's flat out not a character (and so cannot challenge or be challenged)?

- Are weapon teams skirmishers? I.e. do they have 360 LoS? I'm thinking no, they can spin in their turn and fire, but as far as them charging (!) or standing and shooting their arc is still where they're facing.

Thanks for your thoughts.

- Salvage

1. You'd treat him the same way you would a Bloodthirster or Shaggoth - the monster reference just ties into not being able to join units and movement and such. He's still a character choice though and could be challenged - plus since he's a character monster (like a shaggoth), he'd be unaffected by spells which target monsters (like Beast cowers).

2. Weapons teams would be a hard one. They're treated as a single model so benefit from the -1 like skirmishers, but I don't see anything that gives them the skirmishers rule and thus 360 line of sight or charges. The warpfire thrower description also supports this by saying they can pivot to fire and not count as moving (if they followed the rules for skirmishers they would have 360 line of sight and wouldn't need to pivot).

weapons teams are no longer skirmish. and no longer count as a cav base (even though they use one. exspect eratta on that sometime in the future)). they count as a single model in a unit and thus have a front, flank and rear arc. so you are correct you can flank charge them. i guess using the WTs just got harder.
the pivot is used in the movement phase, (though its not clearly writen as such)

as for Mr demonrat he is a character, a monster, and a deamon. there is nothing in the book that excludes him from being any of these so yes he would have to accept challenges and has the right to issue them.

Cheers for the confirmations lads. I was just getting confused by the Vlord and how I couldn't figure out how we actually know any character is a character ... Existential crisis anyone?

Good point on the weapon teams not being US2 any more too, hadn't caught that. Bummer on no multi-directional stand-n-blast, but mostly I was asking because I'm pretty sure I'm fighting a casket on Wed and I may cheekily block my more vulnerable unit's LoS in case of dispel fail ... "Don't look at it, Marion!"

@ Matt, only the beast shaggoth is still a monstrous character, and only if you pay for that upgrade. Unless you talking Kholek, in which case I believe he's classed as 'force of nature'

- Salvage

Remember that a US1 model on its own has a 360 line of site, is not effected by terrain and does not have a flank or rear.

thats skirmish or character (without the monster special rule), negmoney.

From the most recent FAQ:

Q. Do US1 characters (on foot) have a 360-degree
line of sight? How about any single US1 model on
foot, such as the last model of an infantry unit?
Are the models in both instances treated fully as
Skirmishers?
A. Yes, they are exactly the same.

ah, but weapons teams are 2 models on one base, not one on one (US2) kinda like cav without the +1 to armour, and im not surprised they have FAQed something like this. the RAI seams to indicate that the WT has a forward arc and does not act like a skirmisher, the RAW indicates that it is not a skirmisher and is not a single model (US2) its states this clearly under WT.

Skaven pg. 60 "Each Weapon Team is crewed by two Skaven models mounted on a single base and treated as a Single Model.

This seems to indicate that RAW points towards 360 line of sight as it is a single US 1 model on foot. Also RAI is meaningless as you don't know what the intent was without a direct quote from Jeremy Vetock. Intent is a subjective and only those who wrote the book know what the intent is.

Emphasis mine.

Negativemoney wrote:Skaven pg. 60 "Each Weapon Team is crewed by two Skaven models mounted on a single base and treated as a Single Model.

This seems to indicate that RAW points towards 360 line of sight as it is a single US 1 model on foot. Also RAI is meaningless as you don't know what the intent was without a direct quote from Jeremy Vetock. Intent is a subjective and only those who wrote the book know what the intent is.

Emphasis mine.

Page 71 of the main book (paperback version) "25x50mm base - unit strength 2"

It's a single model, yes, but still US 2. No Skirmish for weapon teams.

Negativemoney wrote:Skaven pg. 60 "Each Weapon Team is crewed by two Skaven models mounted on a single base and treated as a Single Model.

This seems to indicate that RAW points towards 360 line of sight as it is a single US 1 model on foot. Also RAI is meaningless as you don't know what the intent was without a direct quote from Jeremy Vetock. Intent is a subjective and only those who wrote the book know what the intent is.

Emphasis mine.

Cavlary mounts are also a single model, but are US2

Treating something as "a single model" does not mean it is only US1, otherwise monsters (single models on foot) and Ogres (single models on foot) would probably be upset...

nosferatu1001:
Vengis:


yup its how were playing it now until, or if they FAQ it. makes more sense they way they wrote it in the book.

oh and rereading, BossSavage: the WT are unit str 2, they just dont count as cav even though they use the base.

So after GeeDub's rewording and the above debate, the verdict is they're essentially still skirmishers, but US2 ones? So the same as the last book?

If so, groovy, I can live with that no prob

- Salvage

They're a single model. So they operate like a single model does. They don't have the skirmish rule so they don't follow any of the normal skirmish rules. They're US2 due to their base size as per the rulebook.

they aren't "essentially" anything. they're just what they are. It'd be identical to a Cav model hanging around a unit by itself.

Ha, well my bad Eric. Clearly you all lost me in the back and forth above, which I'm guessing all said the same thing anyway.

Like Vengis said most clearly, no skirmish, check. No 360-degree-stand-and-shoot or cheeky 360 charges for my ratters.

- Salvage

I think you will have a hard time justifying the US 2 as they are not cavalry or a four legged animal as the description for US2 models are listed on page 7.

For those in the US 2 camp what is the US of a single Jezzail?

Negativemoney wrote:I think you will have a hard time justifying the US 2 as they are not cavalry or a four legged animal as the description for US2 models are listed on page 7.

For those in the US 2 camp what is the US of a single Jezzail?

Not at all, we've had no problem justifying any such thing as the model clearly is US2.
As for jezzails, it states that they are in every respect a WT with slightly different rules, so what do you think im saying their US is? yup 2, ya got it.

If your having a hard time understanding the US2 peeps, read the old skaven Army book. you might with a little imagination understand why.
If you still dont get it, then write Jervis to ask for a FAQ, or visit Jeremy V. and kick him in the nads for such a poor book concering base size and US.

They're on a 25x50mm base, and the only US listed for a 25x50mm base is US2. I consider a Jezzail US2, because it's also on a 25x50 mm base. If there's a different category WTs fit into on the chart on page 71, show me where.

In addition, I'm not sure why you wouldn't consider them as cavalry. They're on the right base size, and cavalry have no special rules that would apply. (although this would make them susceptible to The Beast Cowers)

Cavalry is described on page 7 a model mounted on a beast of some sort (ie. a horse, spider, ect..) or a four legged animal such as a warhound, wolf... ect..) there is no indication that 2 man sized on a base are considered to be US 2 apart from the argument that they come in a package on 25x50mm base. you need to show me a little more than just the base size as the description for cavalry differs from the description of the WT.

There is significant ambiguity in the rules and unless there is clarification there will be conflict here.

@Hawkins: The Old Skaven book is called the Old Skaven book for a reason. It no longer exists as far as the rules are concerned and FW has made many changes in between books so you shouldn't be looking to the past for answered. Also note the changes in the Warriors of Chaos book where the DP lost its magic attacks and anything that truly makes him a Daemon but it still counts as one. Also Daemonic Steeds on a 50x50 base that more or less count as cavalry and are treated as those on a 25x50 base. So there is enough information to indicate that they are not US 2 as you claim.

Vengis: in the old book they were listed as special rule cav base, so they recived a 6+ armour save. i agree they are on the right sized base and should be concidered Cav, but you cant apply a rule that GW forgot or omitted. so if it doesnt specifically state that they are concidered cav, (like in the old edition) then they wont benifit from cav rules.
but lets look at the reason something is considered Cav, in the rules states that rather than having extra models when a horse dies and all the problems splitting models would incure they simply use the rule cav. a cav gets +1 to its AV, and the mount uses the riders LD for tests and such, this is not always the case as other books might give an extra attack rather than AV, but for simplicity the 2 models are treated as 1 with a unit STR of 2, with benifits.
So going by this, your absolutely right they should be concidered Cav, there isnt any good reason to exclude em as such, they have the correct base size, US2, in former books were listed as cav.... no idea why they arent clasified as such but there you have it. no clear rule on em. for now were playing them as non cav models till a FAQ corrects or confirms.

Neggy: A new edition might change rules, but for direction the old books are helpful, the exclusion or changing of a rule might not make any sense unles you refer to an older edition. you asked why i call the WT US2 ive given you the reasons from me, and the group i play with. and others here have agreed. if you dont like our logic, then make up your own rule, untill Good ol GW gets off its ever annoying arse and makes a FAQ.

Hawkins wrote:
Neggy: A new edition might change rules, but for direction the old books are helpful, the exclusion or changing of a rule might not make any sense unles you refer to an older edition. you asked why i call the WT US2 ive given you the reasons from me, and the group i play with. and others here have agreed. if you dont like our logic, then make up your own rule, untill Good ol GW gets off its ever annoying arse and makes a FAQ.

I view that if you take the old rules into account you run into more problems than if you just disregard them entirely. The main reason for your argument here is that in the old rules they are this way and they are on a 25x50mm base. My argument is that if you take the physical model out of the questions and you apply the rules that are in the book compared to the main rule book you will see that US 1 is more fitting than US 2.

Once again I say that GW should clear this up but right now the way the rules are written WTs are US 1 as they do not fit the definition of cavalry as detailed on page 7 of the main rule book.

Hawkins, I wasn't saying that they were Cav so they could get a save. That only applies to a mount and rider anyways. There really aren't any specific bonuses to Cav other than the +1 armor that doesn't apply in this case, and US2. I don't have any recent army books other than skaven; do they list units such as dire wolves or knights as Cav specifically?

Negativemoney, taking the physical model out of the question doesn't work, because the rules are based on the physical model.

You say they should be US1 because they don't fit the description of Cavalry exactly, but they also don't the description of a US1 model, as they aren't mounted on a 20 or 25mm square base.

Vengis wrote:
Negativemoney, taking the physical model out of the question doesn't work, because the rules are based on the physical model.

You say they should be US1 because they don't fit the description of Cavalry exactly, but they also don't the description of a US1 model, as they aren't mounted on a 20 or 25mm square base.

I fully Agree with you on this, given the current circumstances as well as the trend that GW has gone with as far as breaking from the past rules that it has written. We also go back the Jezzail question I posed earlier and if they were US 2 or not. Some say they are others still say they are US 1.

Well i think this topic has just about run its course. the only thing to do now is take what ever rule your area agrees on and run with it. here its US2, apperently in other places its US1. We will just have to hold out for the FAQ if GW ever gets around to it. either way thanks for the discussion.

I fall on the US 2 side. Why?

Because there are two Skaven on the base!

Vulcan wrote:I fall on the US 2 side. Why?

Because there are two Skaven on the base!

QFT. Going with US2 as well.

So would you consider them Cavalry or Infantry?

I'd consider them cavalry. I really can't find where it matters though. The only instance I can think of is that The Beast Cowers would affect them. There's probably a few magic items out there that would affect them as well.

Negativemoney wrote:So would you consider them Cavalry or Infantry?

I consider them US2 , infantry.
IMO , they are on cavalry base to make them easier to model , nothing to do with turning them into beasts.

LunaHound wrote:
I consider them US2 , infantry.

There is no such thing as US 2 infantry, it is either US 1 (man sized) or US 3 (ogre sized) this is per the rules in the rule book.

Vengis wrote:I'd consider them cavalry. I really can't find where it matters though. The only instance I can think of is that The Beast Cowers would affect them. There's probably a few magic items out there that would affect them as well.

Then this opens a whole new can of worms as other magic spells and abilities can effect weapon-teams and others that won't be able to effect them.