7th Ed. The slann should be clasifed as a monster

[Celticfire]

ok, hold on before you scream at what an idiot i am for thinking this please look at pg 59 in the brb, the picture on the top, then look at pg 41 in you lizzies book and then tell me that that it is not a slan in both pictures. i know that the slann is NOT a monster, should not be clasifeied as one, no ever be used as one. this is obviusly a typo. But come on GW, a PICTURE typo, that requires tremendous amounts of stupidity. not just the normal amount that we expect from GW

 

[Caneghem]

Probably less of a typo than just plain laziness... though I don't know which would be worse.

 

[strewart]

Eh.. Remember the BRB was written a fair while ago, though I do not know if Slann were much different in the old rules. And even if it was a monster, would it really make that much difference in the rules? He has special rules for joining units so overrules the normal restriction of monsters and thats about it.

Interesting observation though, good spotting.

 

[Aranigej]

I could be wrong here, but the diagram in the rulebook seems to indicate how single models on a monster base (50mm) move.

Doesn't really indicate that the slann is, in fact, a monster for rules purposes.

 

[strewart]

Yeah you are right, the OP is infering rules based on the diagram given which is sort of a fair point (ie. there should not be a picture of an eagle in a diagram explaining cavalry for example) but its true that it doesn't anywhere say the Slann is a monster.

 

[blackhawk]

its not a picture typo.

in the previous lizzie book the slann was a character monster ( just like treeman ancient and greaterdeamons).
and heck the BRB whas written when the 6th ed lizzie book was active.