IA11 redmaw is now a monstrous creature

[Valerian]

EDIT - Ninja'd

 

Yeah, as strange as it sounds he doesn't have MotW. He doesn't really need it though - plenty of attacks and now he gets 2D6 armour penetration and ignores armour.

 

------

 

He doesn't get the Mark of the Wulfen; he straight up turns into a full-blown Wulfen.

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

While I don't wish to micturate on your bonfire, the Errata needs an Errata. 'Monstrous Creature' isn't a Special Rule, it's a Unit Type so adding 'Monstrous Creature' to his Special Rules does exactly... nothing.

[Grey Mage]

Anyone whos going to be that OCD about their rules shouldnt be using FW rules... or possibly even GW at all.

[Oiad]

Possibly but I'm not trying to pass judgement on the players here, just gauge opinions for if the issue comes up. I can understand Res Ipsa Loquitur's point very much but in the spirit of what FW were trying to achieve would you believe a transported Redmaw would have to disembark ASAP after he transforms or would you allow him to stay put?

[JamesI]

Possibly but I'm not trying to pass judgement on the players here, just gauge opinions for if the issue comes up. I can understand Res Ipsa Loquitur's point very much but in the spirit of what FW were trying to achieve would you believe a transported Redmaw would have to disembark ASAP after he transforms or would you allow him to stay put?

Either he is a Monsterous Creature and therefore can not be in a transport or he is still infantry, can be in a transport, but loses the cool MC bonuses. Which do you want?

 

That's how I see it.

 

Anyone whos going to be that OCD about their rules shouldnt be using FW rules... or possibly even GW at all.

I don't see Res response being OCD, but a response to people claiming that because Redmaw's type is Infantry but he has the special rule Monsterous Creature he is still infantry but he gets the MC bonuses.

[eyeslikethunder]

Either he is a Monsterous Creature and therefore can not be in a transport or he is still infantry, can be in a transport, but loses the cool MC bonuses. Which do you want?

 

Technicallly there is no rending special rule its just weapon bonus according to the rulebook as it is no longer a USR see p42 and p74 (little rulebook). But lots of models take the bonus and apply it as a special rule. I would say that is what is happening here.

[JamesI]

Either he is a Monsterous Creature and therefore can not be in a transport or he is still infantry, can be in a transport, but loses the cool MC bonuses. Which do you want?

 

Technicallly there is no rending special rule its just weapon bonus according to the rulebook as it is no longer a USR see p42 and p74 (little rulebook). But lots of models take the bonus and apply it as a special rule. I would say that is what is happening here.

I am aware of that as well. There, like here, I think it is perfectly clear what is meant.

 

All I'm saying is, stay in a transport as infantry-don't ingore armor saves and get 2d6 armor pen OR get out of the transport as a MC and get all of that stuff. Don't try for both.

[eyeslikethunder]

It will be interesting to see how big the model is to see if it unrealistic for him to embark.

Maybe they handed out the special rule rather than change his type to represent how powerful he is rather than his size and therefore the Unit type is deliberate.

 

There are no rules that say a MC cant embark only that you must be infantry to embark.

But if he has the type Infantry the Special rules Montrous Creature. He would be allowed to embark.

 

There are also some exceptions cyberwolves/upgrade F wolves are cavalry but can embark. They are part of mixed units of course.

 

 

He is described as being in space wolf armour in Werewolf form IRC by one the executed witnesses so the change cant be that massive but i do note loses his save throw.

 

I could see forgeworld will changing his type in a later FAQ but would not put any money on it at all. I can see going both ways really

[JamesI]

I wonder if the FAQ is actually prep for 6th edition rules. Perhaps what are now unit types will just be special rules.

 

So, using 5th edition rules Special Rule Monsterous Creature has no meaning, but in 6th it might.

[eyeslikethunder]

I tempting thought James

 

a little tease from Forgeworld

 

but I would bet on grey mage being right as more likely

[eyeslikethunder]

Just read through my IA11 and he is described as 12 foot tall so I dont think he could embark and once changed would have to Disembark

[Niiai]

In suport of Grey Mage's argument I would like to point out that he has the special rule "indapendant character" and not "independent character" rending him quite useless for 210 points, even with outh the monstreus creature. From what I can see he is both an MC and a infantery.

[eyeslikethunder]

Well here is what forgeworld said so he can be transported and does not need to get out

 

I wrote Forge World to try and help us out with this. This is what I sent:

 

 

Just got your FAQ for IA 11 and there is a discussion going on about the FAQ for Bran Redmaw. when he becomes the Redmaw and has the character special rules "monsterous creacture" does that change him from infantry to a monsterous creature? if if so how does that work. is he model replaced by another model to represent the redmaw as a monsterous creature. if he does not change to a monsterous creature, how does that rule work? Lastly, can the redmaw still use transports?

 

Here is the response that I got back:

 

Hi there.

 

Ideally you should replace the Bran model with a Redmaw model that is bigger to represent his changed appearance. The Redmaw model can still be transported and still takes up one space.

 

 

Thanks

 

Tris Buckroyd

[JamesI]

Wow, that completely does not fit in the rules, but then again, I'm not convinced GW ever reads their own rules. He can't be infantry and MC!

[Grey Mage]

Anyone whos going to be that OCD about their rules shouldnt be using FW rules... or possibly even GW at all.

I don't see Res response being OCD, but a response to people claiming that because Redmaw's type is Infantry but he has the special rule Monsterous Creature he is still infantry but he gets the MC bonuses.

Then that is the issue that needs to be addressed, not saying that he is not a monstrous creature because there is no monstrous creature special rule.

 

Yes, it is possible for a unit to be multiple unit types though its rare and usually FAQd away for sanities sake. However, it must then abide by the rules and restrictions for both. So a monstrous creature can be targetted even in a unit for example, and cannot be transported outside of apocalypse. Since infantry is the baseline for the units in this game, it really doesnt mean anything different than his unit type changing to 'monstrous creature'.

 

Its like Rending for thunderwolves- or alot of other units. There is no rending special rule, merely rending close combat weapons.... but no one with any sense will try to deny you rending because of that.

 

And, for what its worth, I dont care what FW said in an email- Ive seen far to many faked emails and conflicting responses from the same departments over the years. He can be transported when it comes out in a FAQ.

[JamesI]

Anyone whos going to be that OCD about their rules shouldnt be using FW rules... or possibly even GW at all.

I don't see Res response being OCD, but a response to people claiming that because Redmaw's type is Infantry but he has the special rule Monsterous Creature he is still infantry but he gets the MC bonuses.

Then that is the issue that needs to be addressed, not saying that he is not a monstrous creature because there is no monstrous creature special rule.

 

Yes, it is possible for a unit to be multiple unit types- however, it must then abide by the rules and restrictions for both. So a monstrous creature can be targetted even in a unit for example, and cannot be transported outside of apocalypse. Since infantry is the baseline for the units in this game, it really doesnt mean anything different than his unit type changing to 'monstrous creature'.

 

Its like Rending for thunderwolves- or alot of other units. There is no rending special rule, merely rending close combat weapons.... but no one with any sense will try to deny you rending because of that.

 

And, for what its worth, I dont care what FW said in an email- Ive seen far to many faked emails and conflicting responses from the same departments over the years. He can be transported when it comes out in a FAQ.

I absolutely agree with this post.

[JamesI]

I had sent an email to FW and received the same response posted above (slightly different wording but same effect).

 

I think FW made a mistake using hte words Monsterous Creature. Basically I think they should have just said "he ignores armor in CC and 2d6 pen against vehicles" basically the effect of MC without dealing with the other issues involved.

[Russ Brother 92]

I think FW made a mistake using hte words Monsterous Creature. Basically I think they should have just said "he ignores armor in CC and 2d6 pen against vehicles" basically the effect of MC without dealing with the other issues involved.

 

tbh. with this point I would ask my opponent and if they're cool with it I would then simply run him where much like Fuegan in C:E he gains the equivi of a PW (ignore armour in cc) and gains 2D6 Armour Pen.

 

If they weren't okay with it then I'd just run him as per current rules on MCs

[Niiai]

All anal rules reading that monstrus creature is not a special rule but a unit type besides, this is how I see this:

 

"Pg127 – The Redmaw:

Add Monstrous Creature to the Redmaw’s Special Rules. Note that Bran Redmaw does not gain this ability before he succumbs to the Curse of the Redmaw."

 

It says add, not replace. So he is a monsterus cretaure and an infantery. Infantery can ride in tarnsports, there is nothing that says that MC's cant ride in transports. Since he is allowed because he is an infantery he can ride in the transport.

[JamesI]

All anal rules reading that monstrus creature is not a special rule but a unit type besides, this is how I see this:

 

"Pg127 – The Redmaw:

Add Monstrous Creature to the Redmaw’s Special Rules. Note that Bran Redmaw does not gain this ability before he succumbs to the Curse of the Redmaw."

 

It says add, not replace. So he is a monsterus cretaure and an infantery. Infantery can ride in tarnsports, there is nothing that says that MC's cant ride in transports. Since he is allowed because he is an infantery he can ride in the transport.

See I think that's just as bad as the reading saying there is no special rule "Monsterous Creature".

 

He is MC or he is Infantry, which is it?

 

He is not both.

 

Hence why I sid it would have been easier if they gave him something like

Special Rule: all attacks in close combat count as power weapons and he has 2d6 armor pen.

 

Solves all the problems by never calling him a Monsterous Creature.

 

Is there anoher example of something being 2 types simultaneously?

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

Anyone whos going to be that OCD about their rules shouldnt be using FW rules... or possibly even GW at all.

 

Agree, but you know that someone, somewhere will make this argument in-game.

 

We have a SW player in our group and we've simply agreed with a comment posted above; The Redmaw rolls 2d6 to penetrate and ignores armour saves instead of having a SR that, strictly speaking, does nothing.

[Emperors Immortals]

All i can think is a GD possesion - the infantry miniature is replaced by a much larger Daemon figure, forcing his exit from transports and gaining MC advantage.

 

He can be infantry Bran but MC Redmaw id think.

 

hehe, MC Redmaw in da house!!!

[Niiai]

Where does it say that he is not both? There are no rules against it. There is no place that states that they need to have only one creature type eather, just that you should asume ifantery of nothing else i stated.

 

In fact tyranid MC's are flying and MC. I also think the GK MC is badly worded as well?

 

Also MC's cant use transports because there are no rules suporting it, but there is a rule that alovs infatery to use it so he uses that enabler to get into the transport.

 

Also, the awser from Tris Buckroyd is a good indicator. FW especialy but GW in general are bad with the rules.

 

Edit: Also, are there any greater daemon possesion in the game currently? I know it was before but as of now I do not think so? I have never seen those rules under 5th edition.

[JamesI]

I can't find any rules in the rulebook to support 1 model being more than 1 type.

 

Where does it say that he is not both? There are no rules against it. There is no place that states that they need to have only one creature type eather, just that you should asume ifantery of nothing else i stated.

 

In fact tyranid MC's are flying and MC. I also think the GK MC is badly worded as well?

 

Also MC's cant use transports because there are no rules suporting it, but there is a rule that alovs infatery to use it so he uses that enabler to get into the transport.

 

Also, the awser from Tris Buckroyd is a good indicator. FW especialy but GW in general are bad with the rules.

 

Edit: Also, are there any greater daemon possesion in the game currently? I know it was before but as of now I do not think so? I have never seen those rules under 5th edition.

 

Tyranid MCs are MCs who move as jump infantry, same with the dreadknight with teleporter. They are not jump infantry. Same for a chaos demon prince with wings.

 

Possession still exists in Codex Chaos Space Marines, and if it happens, the possessed infantry is replaced by a MC who instantly has to get out of atransport if he is in it.

 

Sure, Tris is an indicator of what GW is thinking, but not official until put in a FAQ (and annoyingly he ignored my question of if the FAQ would be amended to indicate Redmaw could still ride in transports).

 

A model can not be MC and Infantry, I see nothing that makes 2 types legal.

[eyeslikethunder]

I dont see the issue really its exactly the same situation as rending

 

Its not a special rule its a weapon bonus in RAW but it is treated as a special rule all the time by codexes

 

The FAQ is saying take the MC rule set and treat them as special rules