8th Ed. Lizardmen 8th Ed. FAQ

[hardyworld]

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)

I concur that this is how it has been played in major tournaments (I, myself, have experience at many of these 'competitive' events: GT, Throne of Skulls, Adepticon, etc. and have played the way olderplayer suggests for years), but that doesn't mean it's been played correctly according to the rules that whole time by US players. I couldn't tell you how many rules were misplayed, misinterpreted by players/official judges, etc. at all kinds of events (dozens and dozens in games I played alone). We should always hold ourselves to the highest level of scrutiny, always reevaluating how well we are following the rules! As a LM player, NOW (before the first FAQ for our new book) is the best time to expose the wording of all the rules that affect us! How else can we expect the needed FAQ/Errata items to be included when it finally comes out?

The list presented here is incomplete, but please e-mail the GW FAQ people (gamefaqs@gwplc.com) repeatedly and with as many questions as you have! It's up to the gaming community to hold GW up the highest standards; we all want the best, so lets work together to make the best!

Sorry for the rant. I guess I just don't like the "that's not how its been played" argument. Again, sorry. You guys have been kind, thoughtful, and supporting in all your posts; and I want to do the same while still conveying my point (or counterpoint).

EDIT: Two more FAQ added! Keep them coming!

 

[Fusilli]

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.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you to some extent there on the following basis: from the wording of the guardian rule we are told that we MUST move the slann to the front rank WHEN there are 5 or less guardian models - we are given a point at which it happens. If he has already moved to the front then how could we follow that rule? We couldn't. (This, I think, backs up your point about GW not thinking carefully about the wording of their rules)

Pedantic? Death by grammar hammer? Think I hate the way I sound for even having to use that argument? You bet your life! But unfortunately it's necessary against a similarly ridiculous suggestion....This brings us back to the point that asking us to assume the challenge is fought asks us to assume what we know to be impossible....

Which brings me back to the wording on P2 of the warhammer rulebook...and a far more reasonable point...

'...be prepared to interpet a rule or or come up with a suitable solution for yourselves....'

I would struggle to see how anyone could interpret a fat geriatric frog taking a challenge ahead of his 30 man bodyguard of WS4 S5 A2, who's only purpose in life is to keep him alive, or suggesting that he was a 'mighty warrior' who would face 'ignomy' for having failed to accept a challenge, as suitable.

 

[Fusilli]

Here's a nice one for you too...check out the wording that prevents us from using the BSB's hold your ground rule:

Page 107 – The Battle Standard Bearer.
Add “If a Battle Standard Bearer is in a unit that Refuses a
Challenge and is subsequently moved to the rear of its unit, it
loses the Hold Your Ground rule until the end of the turn.
Note, however, that if the Battle Standard Bearer has a magic
standard its effects continue to apply as normal (it cannot be
‘switched on or off’)”.

So...
1. As you rightly said, the character slinks off to the back ranks... and this need not be the last rank...or as I like to call it 'the rear'. The 'rear of the unit' is shown on P5 of the warhammer rule book. So RAW means that as long as you don't place him on the rear then we're good.

We can all play the pedantic with the writing of the rules game

2. If the battle standard is magical then its effects will continue to apply - not its magical effects, all of its effects. The subject of the sentence is the Battle Standard Bearer - so its effects [anyone know any of the effects of a BSB?] continue to apply so long as the slann has a magical BSB.

Grammar Hammer strikes again! Take that would-be slann challengers!

Looking forward to the 'oh but that's not how it's meant' conversation...at which point I'll swoop in with the 'let's talk about page 2' conversation again.

 

[hardyworld]

On your #2:

I don't see any conflict in the wording. Magic Standard is the subject of "its effects continue to apply", not the Battle Standard Bearer (I believe it is the object of the preposition). Hold Your Ground won't apply, but the magic effects of standard continue to apply as normal.

If I wrote, in the same sentence structure, "If Jill has a cup, its lost." You wouldn't say Jill is the subject (and is lost), you'd say the cup is the subject (and must be lost).

 

[Fusilli]

I think you might be right although #2 was an afterthought, which I noticed as I was writing #1.

Shame we have to come up with #1, not in the spirit of the game at all, but then nor is the problem that it solves.

 

[lifeasalizard]

Just wanna point out that the Guardians special rule doesn't have any wording as to how much space/ranks/files that the Slann takes up. So we better put something in here about being forced to take TG in 6 wide formation, otherwise 2nd and subsequent ranks are only 4 models wide, and thus don't have rank bonus.

Silly, I know, but RAW there's nothing accounting for this.

 

[hdctambien]

Just wanna point out that the Guardians special rule doesn't have any wording as to how much space/ranks/files that the Slann takes up. So we better put something in here about being forced to take TG in 6 wide formation, otherwise 2nd and subsequent ranks are only 4 models wide, and thus don't have rank bonus.

Silly, I know, but RAW there's nothing accounting for this.

This is covered in the BRB Pg 98 "If a character's base is larger than one model, but has exactly the same size area (or footprint) as two or more models, simply displace those models to the back rank and position the character int heir place. If your character(s) fit into the unit in this manner, work out the unit's ranks (and therefore rank bonus) as if the space was filled with rank and file troops."

 

[BEEGfrog]

Hello everyone, long time no posts...

Regarding skink handlers, they are a pool for the whole unit and operate as a marker for how many are left and do not take up any room on the battlefield. You cannot charge them and they "teleport" out the way if any thing has to occupy the space they are in. As they are just markers for something effectively occupying the same base space as their group of monsters it fits the spirit of the M&H rules that they all get to attack any model in base contact with one of their monsters. If a model was in base contact with monsters from more than one hunting pack then ALL the skinks in all the packs in contact could attack the same model, they are markers whose location on the board is the same as their monsters.

Regarding supporting attacks from the rear of combined skrox units. Supporting attacks are worked out by model not rank, although some f the supporting text does mention ranks, the rules themselves are relatively clear, you work back by model not by rank. I.e. you get a supporting attack if you are behind a model that is in the first rank not that you get a supporting attack if you count as being in the 2nd rank for rank calculation purposes. Note the TG behind the slann get supporting attacks in wide formations as the slann is a single model that counts as two ranks deep for rank depth calculations.

 

[Battlehamster]

I won't really try to argue the rules but for the Slann, it is so against the fluff and the entire reason for the Temple Guard to allow a Slann to be challenged. Frankly, if GW doesn't FAQ this to make a Slann in a TG bunker immune to challenges then that would be extremely stupid. It should be added onto the Guardian special rule if nothing else. Until then, I am going to play it that he cannot be challenged.

 

[hardyworld]

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."

I concur with you, Sir Battlehamster, the above would be a simple and flavorful addition to the Guardians rule (with some clarifications associated to the FAQ in this thread).

 

[olderplayer]

I hate to do this, but the proponent of this thread is not an experience player with familiarity of a variety of settings and experience working throughj the practical implications of the proposed FAQs in actual game play.

The best example of this is in FAQ answers number 37 and 38 on the application of the Monsters and Handlers rules to Hunting Packs. The proposed FAQs are still clearly wrong and the discussion that followed my objection missed almost entirely the discussion of the use of plural monsters as opposed to singular monster from of the word Monster and the clarifying Hunting Pack rule language. I think the response on 12/19 to my comment on this issue really missed the point. and faied to respond to numerous points of language, syntax and phrase construction. The fact that the rule had been played for years one way does established a certain precedence since the Monster and Handler rule has not changed and the Hunting Pack rule has not changed materailly wrt to the new book. Dismissing the point by overapply ing strained wordsmithing is not appropriate especially since the players I deal with apply RAW very strictly. Beyond, that, I went through a very extensive set of examples to illustrate how impractical the idea of matching handlers to inidividual monstrous beasts was in practice, especially as handlers are removed over time through play. In a mixed unit, therre is no such matching in the BRB or in the LM book provided for such Hunting Packs and no basis to suggest it. Thus, the proposed FAQ reads into the LM book and BRB rules that are not there and requires a matching of individual handlers to individual monstrous beasts entirely contrary to the rules for mixed units in the BRB.

The bottom line is this: The Hunting Pack rule means all handlers are commonly shared by all monstrous beasts in the same unit and cannot be identified with or assigned separately to individual monstrous beasts. Any prposed FAQ requiring to the contrary matching individual handlers to indivudula monstrous beasts is, therefore, wrong. The LM army book says, "monsters and handlers" rule but the BRB says monster and handlers, so one must modify every phrase where the word monster appears with the word monstrous beasts (in plural) in order to properly apply the BRB rule to the LM Hunting Pack units.

Please go back and reread the language re the Hunting Pack rules and think about how awkward and strained the FAQ interpretations would be in actual game play settings. Frankly, this is an example of someone not havng played a lot competitively and not having played for years with these types of units, for I find it hard to imagine an experienced long-time LM player making this mistake. My son and I discussed how unorthodox and how many additional questions and issues arise if the suggested FAQ were correct, including the different consequences that result depending on how and when handlers are allocated to monstrous beasts and depending on exactly when and if the remainiing handlers are reallocated. Depending on how one applied this matching of handlers to m. beasts, you'd have crazy results of having a monstrous beast with no handlers at all, but not having to take a monster reaction test if additional handlers remain; or, the strange results of removing more handlers than the rules would logically call for in the combat, shooting and magic phases as a result of unsaved wounds allocated to handlers (per the rule on 5+) and then removing additional handlers whenever a monstrous beast is removed. None of this has ever been responded to or explained as to how it might work in practice with real world examples that are easily agreed to.

 

[hardyworld]

Made several edits to the OP to correct wording and added references as requested.

Obviously there are issues with answering Questions #37 and #38 (#42 and #43 as of Feb-12-14) as pointed out above. Both answers are unsupported by rules and both cause wrinkles that cause issues and/or inconsistencies, thankfully this where The Most Important Rule (pg. 2) and The Spirit of the Game (pg. 3) take over and each player/game can decide how it is best played at that moment.

Looking to make more corrections and add more questions as they are supplied!


EDIT Feb-12-14: FIVE new questions added (Magic Spells section). Please provide more improvements!

EDIT Mar-19-14: TWO new questions added and few minor grammatical corrections made to clarify answers. Please provide more improvements!

EDIT May-20-14: ONE new question added and a minor grammatical correction made. Please provide more improvements and, more importantly, send your FAQ list to GW so they include as many questions as possible in their FAQ when they finally release it.

 

[Sleboda]

I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the effort that's gone into this, the presentation style of the first post, and the guiding principles used to answer the questions. There are, of course, a few answers I don't agree with, but that's the nature of the beast I suppose.

Nice job.

Now, if only GW would show something close to this level of care in supporting the defective product (the rules) they have sold us.

 

[olderplayer]

Agreed. GW's lack of FAQ support for WHFB of late has to be an embarrasment to those working its stores and events. Thanks all.

 

[Eladimir]

An excellent read, and certainly enlightening.

 

[Myster2]

Since the 7th edition FAQ no longer exists does it invalidate any of the previous answers and do we now use the specific army book to come up with those answers?

The 7th edition FAQ is mentioned as a clarifying reference on rules:

1) Q: When a unit with the Cold Blooded special rule (pg. 30) is required to add or subtract additional dice for a Leadership test, how does it work?
A: Take the test on however many dice it would normally be taken plus the extra dice from the Cold Blooded special rule and remove the highest (7th Ed. LM FAQ v1.5).

28) Q: If a Stegadon is taken as a mount can the character’s BS be used when firing the howdah weapons?
A: No (7th Ed. LM FAQ v1.5).

32) Q: Q: Do Kroxigors count towards the minimum unit size of a unit of Skink Cohorts?
A: No (7th Ed. LM FAQ v1.5).

36) Q: Does the Terradon’s Drop Rocks (pg. 42) ability count as a shooting attack?
A: Yes. Treat it as an out-of-sequence shooting attack that hits automatically (7th Ed. LM FAQ v1.5).

38) Q: Can Stegadons and Ancient Stegadons choose to stand and shoot their missile weapons as a charge reaction?
A: Yes, apart from the giant bow (7th Ed. LM FAQ v1.5).

43) Q: When one Salamander/Razordon in a unit of multiple Salamanders/Razordons misfires, are all the shots fired by the unit negated or is each roll on the artillery die resolved accordingly?
A: In the 7th Ed. Lizardmen Armybook & 7th Ed. LM FAQ v1.5, each Salamander's/Razordon's roll was resolved accordingly with a misfire from one creature having no effect applied to other creatures' shots. It is recommended that the same application of the rule be applied now. If a Monster Reaction test is required as a result of a misfire, resolve all shots fired before taking the test for the unit.

 

[Sleboda]

When an edition changes or a book is otherwise replaced, it's a stretch (to put it gently) to apply any rules/rulings to newer materials.

So, yeah, the old stuff is no longer applicable.

 

[hardyworld]

Using only 8th Edition rules (BRB & LM RB) to answer those quoted questions, the same conclusions would easily be made on all of them. Referencing old official answers to these questions only provides supplementary support to the answer, not a solid foundation. If you want to provide some references and/or reasoning to improve the OP that can provide a solid foundation, please do and I'll gladly update.

One of the bigger questions that truly has an unknown answer within the existing rules is #43 concerning resolving hits on a unit from a Salamander Hunting Pack with multiple salamanders. It's a really huge matzo ball that GW left hanging in the given rules. Other than referencing the old rules, I don't know where else to turn in the rules to support any position. These rulebooks are always written on top of old editions, which gives some small validation to old text since sometimes things get lost in the shuffle of finalizing a new rulebook (see the BRB errata for a few examples). It'd be nice if a solid rules-based foundation could be found though; if you find one, please provide it!

EDIT: 3 additional questions added July 13, 2014. Thank you everyone who has submitted corrections and additions!

 

[Eladimir]

Is there no other monster and handler unit that can be taken in units of 1+?

 

[Myster2]

Using only 8th Edition rules (BRB & LM RB) to answer those quoted questions, the same conclusions would easily be made on all of them. Referencing old official answers to these questions only provides supplementary support to the answer, not a solid foundation. If you want to provide some references and/or reasoning to improve the OP that can provide a solid foundation, please do and I'll gladly update.

One of the bigger questions that truly has an unknown answer within the existing rules is #40 concerning resolving hits on a unit from a Salamander Hunting Pack with multiple salamanders. It's a really huge matzo ball that GW left hanging in the given rules. Other than referencing the old rules, I don't know where else to turn in the rules to support any position. These rulebooks are always written on top of old editions, which gives some small validation to old text since sometimes things get lost in the shuffle of finalizing a new rulebook (see the BRB errata for a few examples). It'd be nice if a solid rules-based foundation could be found though; if you find one, please provide it!

The only rule out of those i was hoping might be different is the heroes riding stegadons. It would be nice for them to clarify if "replacing" a model means "takes the place of, i.e. joins the crew." Then a skink chief could shoot the weapons at his BS. This was specifically faq'd to not be true in the last book. I don't think i can make a strong enough case for it due to the previous existing faq though.