you're right! And probably right as well on the other question - i just hoped, since it would be good for the TG. I'm quite certain they're stuck with their weapons. But i havent' had it checked yet so i am stillhoping . On the last nore @hardy - you are both correct s&s is a must, with no flee, but in the old faq, if you couldn't s&s (due to range) you could flee - today that isn't an issue QtF
Cleaned up at lot of Q&A. Added some organization to the questions. Hopefully people will find this helpful now that several members have corrected my wrong answers and added several more FAQ.
This FAQ is actually excellent. One further comment: the citation for the Pirahna Blade is wrong. It does not provide a characteristic bonus (a characteristic is something like Strength, Weapon Skill, or Initiative). It grants a special rule. It might be better to say, "For characteristic bonuses, the BRB says <blah>. It is recommended that this is treated the same way."
A lot of good work. I migth disagree to a minor extent with a few in terms of whether an absolute yes or no is appropriate but it is not worth doing. However, on the very last issue on skink handlers being removed as their monsters are removed, I always understood the Hunting Pack rule as to attach all the handlers to the unit as a whole and to be shared such that removal of one monstrous beast does not imply removal of any handlers at all. This is important because one misfire might eat 3 handlers but that does not mean that the misfiring beast must take a monster reaction test. Since handlers die with separate allocation of unsaved wound to them on a 5+ under the Monster and Handlers special rule, they should only be removed on the 5+, on misfires eating them, or when the unit loses its last monstous beast. On the allocation of handler attacks in a Hunting Pack, GW should have done a better job of explaining in more detail the Hunting Pack special rule, especially given that the Monster and Handlers special rule was written for a single monster unit and does not anticipate multiple monsters, in this case monstrous beasts, in a unit with shared handlers. If one modified the Monster and Handlers rule to say monsters, then one would say, "In close contact, the handlers can direct their attacks against any enemy in base contact with their monsters." That would theoretically allow all attacks by handlers on a single model in base contact with with any monstrous beast in the unit. Your suggested solution of balancing the handlers across the beasts evenly as possible is fair and reasonble but probably overly so relative to the RAW. One might argue that no more than 3 handlers, unless the unit purchases extra handlers, can attack through a single beast in the hunting pack but allow for uneven distribution of attacks.
Question 8: Nothing in the BRB says that magic banners replace normal standards (infact, only magic armour seems to replace it's mundane version). Even in the Lizardmen book and temple guard say the magic banner is taken, not upgraded. So it seems that the magic banner and the standard are two different things, meaning you can still destroy the item, but not the standard bearer. Question 11: The Egg goes off at the start of a close combat phase (yours of the enemy) so this would be before a close combat round is fought and therefor before challenges. So, if the character with the egg is not already in a challenge, then the egg would have to hit the unit he's in contact with.
NB: The situation in question arises when a character declines to use the egg in the first round of a challenge, and then decides to use it on the second.
I have a lot more page numbers I really need to be adding for reference, but I haven't gotten around to it (I'll add at convenience). @RipperDerek: I updated to include your suggestion to clarify (I believe). Thank you! @olderplayer: Concerning Monster Reaction see Question #33, all handlers have to be removed before a Monster Reaction Test is required (so 1 last skink can handle 4 razordons). Concerning removing handlers when removing a monstrous beast, the Monsters and Handlers rules state that handlers are removed once the monster is removed (not once all the monsters are removed). In the spirit of the rule, it makes the most sense to remove handlers accordingly because handlers are included when you add more monstrous beasts to a unit and gameplay concerns can pop up otherwise (and this works hand in hand with the other FAQ). Concerning handler's attacks "the handlers can direct their attacks against any enemy in base contact with their monster." I believe evenly distributing them makes more sense than keeping track of which salamander/razordon has lost handlers throughout the game (for many reasons). Either way, you definitely couldn't have more than 4 handlers attack through 1 monstrous beast since for other handlers, that beast is not 'their monster'. @Necromancy Black: I'll update #8 when I get a chance. I believe challenges are declared at the start of close combat phase (it is the player whose current turn it is to determine which occurs first, declaration of challenges or other special rules, BRB pg. 10), so it is still somewhat likely that the Egg of Quango would be activated in the first round of combat within a challenge (that is a good thing). EDIT: I also have some more FAQ to add!
There isn't a more recent one, but the ruling that razordons are able to flee if unable to stand and shoot is from the same FAQ, and therefore equally relevant. Somewhat more importantly, there isn't a *current* FAQ, in which case it's surely better to go with RAW according to the army book. The wording in the army book is that a unit "...must stand and shoot if it is able to do so", a restriction clearly limited to circumstances where stand and shoot is a possibility. There are no other rules, so a razordon pack unable to stand and shoot for any reason, including having already made a stand and shoot reaction that turn, are clearly free to choose a charge reaction normally.
Page 102 states that declaring challenges happen at the start of a combat round. So that's after the combat phase starts.
I'm not sure if there is a defined difference between the 'beginning of the close combat phase' and the 'beginning of a combat round'. If there is, then I've been playing it wrong for years. I really got to declare ALL challenges before ALL combats are fought? That seems like an unnecessary distinction.
BRB Pg 102: "Challenges are issued at the start of the combat round, before any blows are struck" Lizardmen Pg 63: "The Egg of Quango can be cracked open at the start of any Close Combat phase" BRB Pg 46: "Close Combat Summary: 1. Fight a Round of Close Combat 2. Calculate Result... etc" The Combat Phase can contain multiple Combat Rounds. Each of which would have a "beginning". It's not entirely spelled out in the rules, but a more verbose summary of the combat phase would look something like this: x. End of Shooting Phase 1. Beginning of Combat Phase 2. Active Player chooses which combat to fight 3. Beginning of Combat 4. Fight a Round 4a. Issue Challenge 4b. Always Strikes First attacks 4c. Inititive 10 Attacks 4d. Etc... 4x. Initiative Always Strikes Last 5. Calculate Combat Resolution 6. Break Test 7. Flee & Pursue 8. End of Combat Round 9. If there are any unresolved combats, go back to Step 2 10. End of Combat Phase y. End of Player Turn z. If both players have played their Turn: End of Game Round zz. If 6 Game Rounds have been played: End of Game But, as you say. The "Beginning" of a phase/round is not explicitly defined in the rule book except for the implied fact that everything must have a beginning (and an end). Games like Magic the Gathering are much more specific about the existence of a Beginning of Turn, Beginning of Phase, End of Phase, End of Turn time periods. Warhammer prefers to be more vague...
I see I got my thoughts turned around on the previous post, thanks. Exactly. What you present makes sense, but I'm not sure if 1 through 4a could also be labeled 1a through 1d since these are all steps to be taken before any dice hit the table. "Beginning" is vague and could justifiably be placed anywhere in wide range of substeps (from after the end of the shooting phase to right after impact hits have been completed in the close combat in question). I think this is why the rule on pg. 10 exists.
[@olderplayer: Concerning Monster Reaction see Question #33, all handlers have to be removed before a Monster Reaction Test is required (so 1 last skink can handle 4 razordons). Concerning removing handlers when removing a monstrous beast, the Monsters and Handlers rules state that handlers are removed once the monster is removed (not once all the monsters are removed). In the spirit of the rule, it makes the most sense to remove handlers accordingly because handlers are included when you add more monstrous beasts to a unit and gameplay concerns can pop up otherwise (and this works hand in hand with the other FAQ). Concerning handler's attacks "the handlers can direct their attacks against any enemy in base contact with their monster." I believe evenly distributing them makes more sense than keeping track of which salamander/razordon has lost handlers throughout the game (for many reasons). Either way, you definitely couldn't have more than 4 handlers attack through 1 monstrous beast since for other handlers, that beast is not 'their monster'. There is no "spirit of the rule" and your reading of the spirit of the rule is frankly wrong and completely out of context of how Hunting Packs have been played for many years in tournaments. The Hunting Pack rules have not changed from the prior army book and the monster and handlers rule has not changed in the BRB. There really is nothing in the rules that says that each handler is attached to a specific monstrous beast in a unit once they are part of a Hunting Pack. In fact, while each monstrous beast is purchased with 3 handlers, they operate in a pack where the handlers are shared and are not attached to specific monstrous beasts. I do agree that, from a practical perspective, the idea that more than 3 handlers could provide supporting attacks through a single salamander or razordon is, from a physical perspective, not practical and would not be practical if skink handlers were required to be ranked up behind the monstrous beasts and treated as physically existing (blocking line of sight, providing hard cover, blocking movement, able to be charged and measuring charge distance to the handlers and not the monstrous beasts) but that is not how the Monster(s) and Handlers rule is written where it is very clear handlers are treated almost as thought they do not physically exist or occupy space (much like war machine crew). I can think of a number of Warhammer rules that don't make physical sense, like the idea that shooting and magical attacks only hit the war machine and are resolved against its toughness (and characteristics in most instances), but in combat with a war machine, attacks are resolved against the crew's toughness and WS, and impact hits and breath weapon attacks in close combat phase hit the war machine crew, not the machine, even though we might agree that the crew would use the machine to shield them from such attacks much like being behind an obstacle. Given that, what you are proposing is really an unprecedented restriction, impractical in play, and reading something into the monster and handlers special rule that is not there and not intended in the context of page 46 of the army book Hunting Pack rules. Beyond that, it is impractical because it would require separately marking and tracking each handler as being assigned to a specific monstrous beast. The army book is absolutely clear that the monstrous beasts and handlers operate in a pack with shared handlers. What happens in a unit of 3 salamanders if one salamander misfires two turns in a row and eats a total of 5 handlers? Would you take the position that since that salamander had already eaten his 3 handlers, the remaining two that should be eaten would not be eaten because the salamander has already eaten his 3 allocated handlers? Would you take the position that once a salamander has eaten or used 3 handlers (including in allocating unsaved wounds), that single monstrous beast should take a monster reaction test? Consider the following as an illustration of the problem posed by your interpretation of the rules given that there is no separate identification of salamanders and matching of salamanders to handlers in a Hunting Pack. For example, if you have three salamanders in a unit and each one takes an unsaved wound not allocated to a handler from an attack from a model only in base contact with one salamander such that each wound might apply to a separate salamander if they were separately identified and tracked, then your interpretation would imply that one would apply a wound to each salamander and all 3 salamanders would survive the combat phase. That is clearly wrong in terms of how wounds are allocated in a multiple wound model unit, according to the BRB on page 45. The BRB says one should remove one salamander once the salamanders have taken and been allocated 3 cumulative unsaved wounds as discussed on page 45 of the BRB. Similarly, suppose a unit with 3 salamanders and 9 handlers (with no wounds suffered previously) take a total of 5 unsaved wounds from a shooting attack and 3 are allocated to the salamanders and 2 to the handlers. The proper rule would be to remove one salamander and 2 handlers. Under your interpretation, one would remove 2 handlers and then allocate the remaining 7 handlers to the 3 salamanders and then remove at least 2 more handlers when one removes the one salamander casualty because the salamander died when the salamanders accumulated 3 wounds. Frankly, that makes no sense at all and is entirely impractical. Similarly, you would propose that each handler be allocated to a salamander at the start of combat but if a salamander is killed before the handlers and salamanders can attack you would have to reallocate the handlers before striking back? There is nothing the Monsters and Handler rule for such a reallocation because the handlers don't rank up. I suggest that you go back and read the Hunting Pack rules and consider how this was played in the old book. You are misreading the monster and handler rules by reading the singular word monster too literally in the BRB without the context of the discussion in the army book regarding monstrous beasts and handles in a multiple monstrous beast Hunting Pack. You are making up additional rules that have never existed and interpreting certain language in a manner not intended and not as written. The rule on page 46 of the Army Book says, "A unit with this special rule [Hunting Pack] consists of a number of monstrous beasts and infantry handlers. Although they are monstrous beasts and not monsters, they follow all the rules for Monsters and Handlers, as described in the Warhammer rulebook." As I pointed out before, when you read the monster and handlers rule with a plural form of monsters, your interpretation of the rule does not work and does not make sense. Notice that the army book added the plural form to the word Monster in the BRB such that you should change the word Monster in the Monster and Handlers special rule to read as Monsters, or more properly monstrous beasts, on page 73 of the BRB in order to match the language in the army book. For example, taking the discussion on page 46 on the LM army book regarding Hunting Pack and the Monster Reaction test the rule in the BRB now reads, "Once all the handlers [in a Hunting Pack] have been removed, the [unit of monstrous beasts] must take a Monster Reaction test just like a ridden monster that loses its rider."
I think you are considering the case where there is only one combat to fight. If there are two different combats on the table, then dice will actually hit the table before you do Steps 2 - 8 of the second combat. So, if you fought the combat with the Egg second, then you would have experienced: - Start of Combat Phase -- Egg explodes here - Start of First Combat Round -- Impact Hits -- Challenges -- Regular Fighting - End of First Combat Round - Start of Second Combat Round (this is where the egg is) -- Impact Hits -- Challenges -- Regular Fighting The, once again terribly vague, language that GW chooses to use for the timing of Impact Hits is: BRB Pg 71: "Impact Hits are resolved at the very beginning of the close combat, before challenges are issued and attacks of any other kind are made" Which does pose a bit of a quandary. They are likely using "beginning of the close combat" to mean "the beginning of the close combat round" and not "close combat phase" because it specifies "before challenges" which are only issued inside of a Combat Round and wouldn't have to be called out if Impact Hits occurred at the beginning of the Combat Phase. I should note that in the Close Combat section of the BRB each combat round is refereed to as simply a "Close Combat" EXCEPT in the rules for Challenges where the book refers to the "Close Combat Round" The Egg refers to "any Close Combat PHASE" and the BRB uses the term "phase" in the section called The Turn on pg 12: "Turn Summary: 1 Movement Phase, 2. Magic Phase, 3. Shooting Phase, 4. Close Combat Phase" (I also refers to these as Phases several more times in this section). So I think it's pretty clear that the Egg should be one of the very first things that happens in the Combat Phase, before the active player has even decided which Close Combat (round) will go first.. which means that neither Impact Hits nor Challenges will have happened yet. The usage of the word "ANY Close Combat phase" is in contrast to rules that read "in your own Close Combat phase" (like the Troglodon roar only works in "any friendly Close Combat phase") However, in the case where a Challenge was accepted in the previous Combat Phase, I don't see any rules that say the challenge "ends at the end of the round and then starts again at the beginning of the next round" So, I think you're in the challenge until someone dies to breaks. I think there is a definite sequencing difference between the phrases: - "beginning of the Close Combat phase" (Egg) - "beginning of the Close Combat round" (Challenges) - "beginning of the Close Combat, before Challenges are issued" (Impact Hits) So, I don't think there is a sequencing conflict between any of them. Impact Hits and Challenges both require a challenge to be chosen by the active player, but the Egg would go off "At the Beginning" before the active player even chooses which combat will go first and definitely before any actions (Impact Hits, Challenges) go off inside the combat (at that point you are deep into the combat phase and no longer "at the beginning") How much of the Movement Phase do you count as "at the beginning". Can I declare my charges and see if you flee or hold before I decide to use my Potion of Strength. Since Declare charges is at the beginning of Movement and the Movement phase is at the beginning of the Turn I am arguably still at the same beginningness of the Turn as declaring challenges is at the beginningness of the Combat Phase. All that being said, if we were playing and you waned to use your egg and we had already gone through a few combat rounds, I would totally let you. When it comes to actually playing the game, I'm pretty laissez faire about the nitty gritty details as long as the game is fun to play.
Yeah, this is a definite situation that can come up. You can use the egg in your opponents turn (say they charged the unit with the egg) but that doesn't force your opponent to fight that fight first (they might want to fight a different combat first in order to get an overrun charge). And yes, the beginnings are not very well defined, but Phases and Rounds do seem to at least be. And the BRB says that challenges are declared at the start of the combat round.
RAW clearly doesn't make sense here and is arguably in contradiction with the army book. Put simply, the rule book says that in a challenge we move characters to the front so that they can fight and if no amount of manouvering will do then we assume the characters make it into base to base. However, according to the guardian special rule, the slann MUST be in the 2nd rank (unless there are less than 5 rank and file models), meaning that the rule book is asking us to assume something (base to base contact) that is impossible (additionally, army books always pull rank on the rulebook). In the context of knowing that something is actually impossible the point on p2 of the rulebook, which basically says that the rules are a guideline and won't always make sense and need to be interpreted with a suitable outcome, clearly applies. This in turn begs the question 'Is it suitable that a fat old jeriatric with 20+ body guards should have to stand up and say 'it's ok boys, I've got this one' in order to keep the inspiring presence and hold your ground rules or that it shouldn't be possible to challenge him out while he has bodyguards all around him?' Pretty obvious that this rule is made with non-bodyguard arrangements in mind really, isn't it?
I absolutely agree Fusilli with your point. In fact, the first time someone said that the Slann had to accept the challenge or be sent back to the back row at a GT, I was shocked because I had always assumed in the old book anyway, that the Slann could not be moved to the back row and, thus, could not suffer the loss of inspiring presence and BSB boosts from the slann due to "retiring in ignomy." Here is the problem: the new army book says that the Slann must be put in the second rank when it joins the TG unit (or another unit) with at least 5 models with the Guardians special rule but it does not explicitly say that the Slann must then stay there and cannot be moved to another rank. (see p. 35) I think this is an example of GW writing a rule that seems clear but not thinking about the language as written carefully enough and not anticipating the challenge rules (or maybe this omission was intentional). I think the intent is that the Slann must stay in the second rank until less than 5 Guardians models remain in the unit. The Army Book says that the Slann must move the the front rank of the unit once there are less than 5 Guardain special rule models in the unit. It does not say that the Slann may decline challenges and be immune to the loss of inspring presence or BSB benefits or immune to be reqjuired to "retire in ignominy" if the unit declines the challnege. Note also that the Slann always gets and passes the look out sir roll if the Slann is in contact with at least one model with the Guardians special rule., which means the Slann gets a look out sir even if one or two Guardians models are in its unit. Go read page 102 of the BRB where it says that "if no enemy charcter steps forward to meet the challnege [or a champion], one of them [characters] must retire in ignominy." "The retiring character slinks off to the back ranks and is not allowed to attack that round-move the model into a rank where he's not in base contact with the enemy." "Furthermore, the model's Leadership cannot be used for any Leadership tests that take place that turn." Notice that the rank of the character chosen for ignominy need not be the last rank, only a "back rank" that is "not in base contact with the enemy." This if often overlooked and can mean that, if charged from the rear, the character is not placed in the rear rank if possible and must accept the challenge if not possible. If the Slann must stay in the second rank of the unit and declines the challnege, that constitutes a "back rank" even if not the last rank. So, one can have a Slann decline a challenge and no other model accept the challenge and have it not move out of the second rank and still suffer the ignominy consequences. This was not a big deal for LD 8 cold blooded TG units as long as the BSB re-roll was still allowed, but a more recent FAQ in the last year clarified that the loss of Leadership of the character suffering ignominy includes loss of the BSB re-roll LD tests benefit. Also, on page 102 of the BRB, two opposing models in a challenge (involving two opposing units that are in base to base contact/combat with each other) still fight the challenge even if it "is not possible" to bring those two models in the challenge into base contact. Thus, even if the Slann must stay in the second rank (which I think is the correct reading of the Guardians special rule) as long as 5 or more Guardains models remain in the unit, the fighting challenges rule allow for the Slann to accept and fight challenges from the second rank. (at least that is how it is now played) The bottom line is that, under RAW, the Slann may be chosen to suffer ignominy when its unit declines a challenge unless GW issues an FAQ or rule saying that either: the Slann or its unit may decline challenges without teh Slann suffering the consequences of retiring in ignominy, or that a Slann cannot be chosen to retire in ignominy when the Slann's unit still has 5 or more Guardians models in the unit.
Regarding removing handlers with hunting pack beasts: Very Probable! Agreed. Oh? I completely agree with you! I have no idea why you think I would suggest any such thing (maybe my posts were unclear?). I would never suggest keeping track of each beast' handlers within a hunting pack, the handlers work as a group for all gaming purposes. I completely agree with you! I have no idea why you think I would suggest any such thing (maybe my posts were unclear?). THIS! This is exactly what I am saying the rules say. Since the handlers work as a pool, how else would you follow the Monsters and Handlers rule "If the monster is removed, so are its handlers." We aren't keeping track of each beasts' handlers separately here. You can't argue the beast had NO handlers in your scenario, so someone would have to be removed. Most likely not. You'd just removed the beast of your choice from combat (along with his handlers), no reallocation required. That's possible, but if you interpret the rules as you suggest, you are completely changing how the last sentence of the Monster and Handler rule reads (replacing "Monster" with "all Monsters"). I was only suggesting to interpret the Rules as Written, not Rules as Intended (because we, as players, cannot know the difference). Whoa! Lets be civil here, I think we are all trying to interpret the rules, not make up new ones in this discussion. Agreed. This part clearly only applies once all the beasts are dead. So what does other players think? Does the FAQ as stated on page 1 accurately follow the Rules as Written?? Or does olderplayer's interpretation better follow the Rules as Written?? Concerning Beginning of Close Combat Phase vs. Beginning of Close Combat Round: @hdctambien I salute you, sir! An 'A+++++++' Post all the way through! Brilliant! Concerning Slann in Temple Guard unit, Guardians rule, and Challenges: @Fusilli I don't believe there is any conflict in moving the Slann to the front rank when accepting a challenge because the Guardians rule states "When a model with the Mage-Priest Palanquin special rule joins a unit whose front rank contains five or more models with the Guardians special rule, he must be placed in the second rank, rather than the first." So the rule does not restrict a Slann from joining the front rank, when applicable by other rules; and its usually easy to move a Slann to a position in the TG unit to meet the challenger. I believe olderplayer discusses this thoroughly above. I really think 1 additional sentence should have been included in the Guardians special rule "When a model with the Mage-Priest Palanquin special rule has joined a unit containing models with the Guardians special rule, any model with the Guardians special rule may accept a challenge."
My best reading of the rules is that the handlers are one giant pool, period. So if any monster is in B2B, all handlers can attack. And no handlers are removed unless all the salamanders in the pack are removed. Although not explicitly stated, I infer this from the "pooling" rules and from the way the monster reaction tests are handled. That said, that interpretation is a lot clunky, so I think your suggestion on how to handle it is as good as any for gaming purposes. The M&H rules were never intended to handle situations with multiple monsters as part of one unit, and the book does an atrociously bad job of filling the holes.
Olderplayer's interpretation is how I've always played the game (skinks are only removed if they are eated or if the Salamander "passes" its 5+ skink handler save), and I believe that is how it's been played in GTs as well (I have no experience with them, but several of the local players here have been successful at them and they never say boo about how I've "handled" the monster and handlers rules for my salamanders) The old book says just as much about how to handle skink removal in close combat as the new book does (they both say "follow the Monster & Handler rules") so I don't think anything should have changed in how this is played since 2008.