8th Ed. Handlers brought back with regrowth AFTER monster reaction

A question came up in my last game. All the handlers in my salamander hunting pack died. I failed the leadership check and had to roll on the monster reaction table. I got the result that the salamander couldn't move. I had the lore of life, and the regrowth spell. If I cast regrowth on the salamander hunting pack, and bring handlers back to life, is the monster reaction negated? It would make sense, as the handlers would handle the monster, sooth it, or poke it with sticks, or whatever, to get it to do what they want it to do. But my opponent claimed that once a monster reaction is set on a unit, that is permanent. I didn't see anything about this in the rulebook... what do you all think?

 

Re: Handlers brought back with regrowth AFTER monster reacti

The reference is in the spell description itself, which sets out a strict order for regaining wounds. Multi-wound rank-and-file models must be fully healed by the spell before any models are added back into the unit. In the case of monsters and handlers, this means that the monster needs to be brought up to full wounds before handlers are brought back.

I'm going to disagree here. Each of the possible results in the Monster Reaction Table on page 106 explicitly indicate that the effect is permanent, and there is no exception anywhere based on regaining handlers.

It might make logical sense to you that the handlers regain control of the monster. But that's a fluff argument, not a rules argument. Nothing in the rules indicates that the reaction result goes away, and to the contrary, the language of the rule indicates the effects are permanent.

Of course, this potentially gives rise to a situation not covered by the rules--If the monster subsequently loses the Regrown handler(s), does it take a second monster reaction test? Do the results of the new test replace that of the first? Or do you try to apply both, which could lead to some contradictory duties dictated by results 3-4 (monster can't move) and 5-6 (frenzy/hatred and always charges closest enemy).

 

Re: Handlers brought back with regrowth AFTER monster reacti

Calssic D6 "dice it off" situation, I think. it only makes sense to give the handlers a chance each turn to regain control. If they fail, it's a waste of a regrowth spell, and I think by taking that risk you should get a chance to actually use the handlers. If the ruling is that the handlers have no effect, then I would suggest your opponent allow you to pick a different target for the spell. This is more of a sportsmanship issue and less of a rules issue, IMO. One cannot expect that the rules could cover this sort of thing. If the rules tried to cover every possible spell effect on every rule, the rulebook would go on for 1000 pages. There should be a place for common sense and fair play at the gaming table. My 2 cents.

 

Re: Handlers brought back with regrowth AFTER monster reacti

I'm really trying to avoid a dice off situation for consistency's sake. I'd like to know if I can or can't do this before the game even starts. The result I got was 3-4, which states "The monster stops moving.... to guard the fallen body of its master". The rulebook does not say anything about what happens in the case of resurrection. If the master is resurrected though, why is the monster still stopped? What is it guarding? since there is no more fallen body for it to guard. Logically it makes sense that the handler should regain control, or in the very least, be able to take a LD check to test if it can regain control, but my issue is with a dick opponent that won't allow anything unless it is explicitly stated in the rules. Which is why I came here, so that next time we play I can say "I asked online and the internet told me that this is the accepted rule"

 

Re: Handlers brought back with regrowth AFTER monster reacti

It's not really a dice-off situation since there are no rules in conflict.

The results on the reaction chart all indicate that the effects are permanent, stating either "for the remainder of the game" or "from this point onwards". There are no rules anywhere indicating that the effects of a failed monster reaction test can be lifted. You might not like what the rules tell you, and they may dictate a result that seems odd, but that doesn't change the rules. There are some gray areas in the game, but this isn't one of them.

Trying to apply "real world" logic to Warhammer doesn't work, in part because it doesn't necessarily lead everyone to the same place. One could also logically argue that a monster that has gone wild could not quickly be brought back under control, or that when startled by the sudden resurrection of a handler, it is just as likely to eat the handler as obey it.

If you want to play this way, that's fine, but you need to recognize it is a house rule.

Playing by the rules is not being a dick. To the contrary, if I were playing a game and my opponent wants to do something that is against the rules even after I point out the applicable rules, I think that person falls in the "dick" category. And if it is in a competitive play environment, I would go further and call that person a cheater.

Good luck with that. First you'll rarely find unanimous agreement. Second, I think if you try to use the argument "that's what I was told on the Internet" when the rules are clear, I don't think that will go over too well.

The bottom line is that the rules left you in a spot that was unfortunate. That happens sometimes, and nobody wins all their games. Sometimes you just need to accept that.

 

Re: Handlers brought back with regrowth AFTER monster reacti

Question you have to ask yourself is if the tables were turned and your opponent suggested this would you think this an acceptable ruling?

 

Re: Handlers brought back with regrowth AFTER monster reacti

From BRB:

I've got to say, I would take it one step further, as I don't think regrowth would heal the handlers at all.

 

Re: Handlers brought back with regrowth AFTER monster reacti

There is a conflict. It is between rules that exist but do not cover all circumstances, and the logical and probably answer to that said circumstance.

The rules were obviously written thinking of the handlers dying and staying dead forever. And they make sense in that circumstance. I strongly doubt that the situation where a handler is reintroduced was thought of. The rule does not say that the effect is permanent "even if a handler comes back". It doesnt mention that scenario whatsoever, and as such, we cant go strictly by rules as written, because they don't cover it.

If I can't apply logic to a situation, what am I supposed to apply to a situation not strictly covered by the rules? I suppose if the players disagree on logic then this is a situation where the roll off would come into play.

What I mean is that if something is Rules As Intended (henceforth refered to as RAI) then even if it is extremely obvious that it is RAI, my opponent will still go by Rules As Written, unless there is a precedence set of a majority of people doing it a certain way, which is what I came here to get. That is the being a dick part.

I agree that doing something that you know is against the rules is cheating and being a dick, but in this situation with reviving handlers, we don't know the rules as the situation where a handler is revived is not explicitly covered in the rules. The rules do not say that the monster reaction continues if a handler comes back, and they dont say that the monster reaction goes away if a handler comes back. Therefore we cannot go by RAW and must go by RAI. (The rules do say things that lead you to believe that the effect lasts the rest of the game, but it does not take into account the chance of a handler returning, it assumes they are dead forever)

The rules are not clear though. The situation that occurred is not specifically covered.

This was not a deciding factor in the game. I just want to be able to know if reviving handlers will do me any good for my future games. If it can be proven to me one way or the other with some sort of evidence, or precedent, then I'm okay with either way. I'm not convinced yet though. The argument that we have to go by strict rules as written isn't swaying me, because it is obvious that this situation was not taken into account. At the current moment I'm inclined to say that if this scenario happens, I will present my logic as to what should happen, ask my opponent what he thinks, and if we dont agree, then dice off. I do not see this as being a house rule, or cheating, in any degree. We would be deciding upon a rule that is not covered. And it saddens me that there will be no consistency because of this, because some opponents may agree, some wont, and then the dice off could go either way. Hopefully 9th edition covers this.

 

Re: Handlers brought back with regrowth AFTER monster reacti

Well hey, what do I know, I'm just a sculptor I'll stand by what I said though, if the opponent takes the position that resurrected handlers do not function as handlers, or that once a monster rolls on the reaction table there is no way to calm it back down (which is certainly reasonable and not a "dick" move in my opinion, despite being a less fun way to play it) then he should allow you to pick a new target for the spell. If he does not, then I think the "dick" tag applies.

 

Re: Handlers brought back with regrowth AFTER monster reacti

I agree. If an opponent does something based on a misunderstanding of the rules, it is only sporting to step back and let them do something else (so long as it doesn't require rewinding through multiple other actions ...).

 

Re: Handlers brought back with regrowth AFTER monster reacti

Quote from page 1:

So, after the text wall...

I think what Dyvim Tvar is referring to that, for each entry in the monster reaction table (pg 106), it specifically says "for the remainder of the game", "from this point onwards", and "for the rest of the game". That is definitive, no arguments really possible. What he's saying, is that, unless Games Workshop write in a FAQ that when you heal handlers/riders, the monster goes back to normal, then the rule is the rule. Full stop.

If you want to make a house rule (which in general, I think is the right way to go to make battles more fun), by all means do so. But rules is rules, Macca.

 

Re: Handlers brought back with regrowth AFTER monster reacti

Exactly. When the rule says the effect is "for the remainder of the game" or similar words, then the rule covers the Regrowth situation because it covers every subsequent situation. The effect is permanent. There may not be a rule specific to the Regrowth situation, but that does not allow you to ignore a rule of general applicability such as the permanence of the effect.

If you don't like this outcome, then by all means make a house rule with the agreement of your group, but don't try to apply it against unknowing opponents.

 

Re: Handlers brought back with regrowth AFTER monster reacti

Lets say there was a hero called "Marksmanship Trainer" that has the following rule:
"When Marksmanship Trainer joins a unit with a shooting attack, that unit has its WS increased by 1"

Obviously, from context clues and logic, it is the Ballistic Skill, not the Weapon Skill, that is intended to be increased by 1. But people playing RAW would be like "no, it says WS so we're doing WS."

I feel like a similar situation is happening here. We have RAW, and people are saying follow RAW even though it obviously overlooks something.

Anyway, I feel like the tone of this thread is somewhat hostile, and that's not what I'm trying to be about. Thankyou all for your replies

 

Re: Handlers brought back with regrowth AFTER monster reacti

If the book says +1 WS, then you play it as +1 WS until it is changed by an errata, which would hopefully happen pretty quickly in the situation you describe.

It is worth noting that in the past, GW had a history of not giving the "Flaming Attacks" rule to things that (from the fluff) should have had them. Salamander spit had to be fixed with an errata at one point. But certain Tzeentch spells that had the word "Fire" in their names were not given the rule in a prior version of the Daemon army book, it was never fixed through an errata, and Daemon players just had to live with it.

This thread illustrates why we have to follow the rules as written whenever possible. Even if one assumes that the designers overlooked the Regrowth situation, there are differences of opinion on what would be the "right" way to handle the situation. At different points in this thread, it has been suggested that a proper and logical way to address the situation would be:

1) Monsters should immediately be able to act normally when handlers are regained
2) That there should be a leadership test taken to see if handlers regain control
3) That once control is lost, a monster would remain wild even if handlers are regained (this last one was admittedly mine)

The fact is that you could look at pretty much any rule in Warhammer and think of ways that you think it could be better. Other people could look at the same rule and also think of a way that it could be better--but they could well have a different idea than you do.

And this is why (unless you are playing under house rules agreed in advance) we play by the rules as written. They give us a common framework so that we can go push toy soldiers around the table and have fun with complete strangers whom we have never met. If two players lack a common framework, the ability to have fun (which should be the goal) ultimately suffers. If you want to play differently, it really needs to be agreed in advance (don't try to shove it down the throat of someone who disagrees), and you need to recognize that you are making a house rule. Trying to add rules or varying from the written rules during the course of a game is not going to go over very well.

 

Re: Handlers brought back with regrowth AFTER monster reacti

Is there even a rule that says that you can revive handlers after they are all dead?

 

Re: Handlers brought back with regrowth AFTER monster reacti

This is not a moot point. Based on the language of the Monsters and Handlers rule and the Regrowth spell, this can be argued either way ...

In particular, the language in the Monsters and Handlers rule that the handlers are generally ignored, "treating the monster itself as the extent of the unit," can be used to argue that only the monster itself can recover wounds from Regrowth. (Note that in the book the spell was worded in such a way that it did not work on lone monsters, but that has been fixed by an errata).

I don't necessarily agree with this interpretation, but it's not a trivial argument.