Q: Independant characters cant clame objectives, correct? But what about monsterous creatures like Wraithlords, Avatars and Carnefix, can they clame objectives?
Ive look through my rule book and i cant find an answer.
sorry to interfere but the avatar is now just a monstrous creature (FAQ'd), no longer an ic. so it can claim.
the statured daemon prince still however retains its ic status as well as becoming an IC
but a regular MC can claim objectives etc. as long as its above half strength, ie has more than half the # of wounds on its profile left.
The Avatar is a monstrous creature, as descibed on page 55 of the revised Warhammer 40,000 rulebook.
This indicates the previous rules associated with the Avatar, including his pseudo-independant character status are now null, and he just uses the normal Monstrous Creature rules from page 55. If that is so the Avatar can be now lumped in with the Wraithlords and Carnifexen as a normal MC, including their rules for holding objectives.
I agree. If it were still an independant character, the FAQ should have stated that in addition to saying that it is a monstrous creature. After all, the codex already specifies the Avatar as a monstrous creature and there is no reason to reiterate that fact unless it is to redefine the Avatar as being -only- a monstrous creature.
EDIT: In contrast, Chaos Greater Demons are still monstrous independant characters and the FAQ does not change this.
Sigh.. The reason the FAQ says that is because, again if you read the Eldar codex, in the Avatars description it gives *Different* rules for what a monstrous creature is
Therefore because the Avatar uses different MC rules the FAQ clarifies that he uses the new MC rules. Anyway you're free to play that the Avatar is no longer an IC, just be prepared to be wrong
It might be an oversight, the Chaos FAQ does not reiterate or change Greater Demons' status. The Necron FAQ also does not reiterate anything for Tomb Spiders. All three codices use the same definition for monstrous creatures. This leads me to believe that it is not necessary to reiterate what a unit is unless it is being redefined.
Just because hes a MC doesnt mean the rest of his profile is changed heh.. the FAQ also doesnt say hes a demon, it doesnt say he has inspiring presence, nor does it say he has an invulnerable save..
Just try to understand what Im saying is all.. Keep in mind that there was a large debate during 3rd edition about the Avatar. Every single other MC in 3rd edition that was also an IC had a special targetting rule allowing people to target them, the avatar did not therefore you could not target him.. People who didnt understand rules argued you could
GW put this in the FAQ to make sure people read the new MC rules to eliminate the debate over the Avatar..
Odd. Did such a debate also exist regarding the Tomb Spider? It is another example of a 3rd Edition monstrous creature where there are no special rules for targetting it.
Yes, but it can be in a squad, so is it protected in the same way a normal models is?
Anyway, it appears neither of us will convince the other, so I'll simply stop at this point and hope that the next Eldar codex (whenever the smeg GW gets around to starting it) will clarify matters.
Yes, but it can be in a squad, so is it protected in the same way a normal models is?
Anyway, it appears neither of us will convince the other, so I'll simply stop at this point and hope that the next Eldar codex (whenever the smeg GW gets around to starting it) will clarify matters.
But the tomb spider, being a MC, can be targetted if in a squad of non MC's, as per the rules in the BGB. Same for the Avatar, but he is still listed as an HQ choice, as well as IC by the eldar codex. The faq only changes the MC rules to 4th edition.
But the tomb spider, being a MC, can be targetted if in a squad of non MC's, as per the rules in the BGB. Same for the Avatar, but he is still listed as an HQ choice, as well as IC by the eldar codex. The faq only changes the MC rules to 4th edition.
As I said: it is unnecessary to do so unless there is more meaning behind it.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Librarium Online Forums
2M posts
86.9K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to Wargamers, Wargaming 40K enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about Warhammer and Wargaming collections, miniatures, tactics, terrain, reviews, accessories, history, displays, models, styles, scales, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!