Slaughtermaster With Lore of Beasts - In-depth Analysis (2012)

I've recently started using a list that features a SM using  lore of Beasts and I wanted to share all the lore has to offer and why I think it can be effective with ogres.

Disclaimer: I'm not advocating its the best lore but it is one that is overlooked on the SM
Disclaimer 2: I use Grut's Sickle to offset the higher casting values of the boosted spells

First off I'll go through each spell and discuss the merits of each

Signature: Wyssan's Wildform: Obviously this is the spell that most people think about when thinking about taking the Lore of Beasts.  +1 Str and +1 T is useful every turn of the game, both offensively and defensively.  Great range and really easy to cast with the +6 bonus. Great spell and should always be taken.

1. Flock of Doom - Easy to cast, cheap magic missile.  However, unless against specific opponents like elves or armies with high cost skirmishers or ethereal units there are better spells.  Situational pick but only needs 1 die to cast( last spell of phase).

2.  Pann's Impenetrable Pelt- Makes a character all but invincible, even S6 needs 6's to wound them.  Less effective against low Str opponents but that's why I gear my characters to have the best armor they can get.  In the era of death star units the bubble effect can make your whole front rank (3+ characters) practically indestructable.  I think ogres are one of the few armies to really take full advantage of all the potential this spell has to offer.  Remember that denying combat resolution is just as good as creating combat resolution and keeps you alive longer as well. 

3.  The Amber Spear- Another situational pick but pretty cheap to cast and great if you need more ranged attacks.  There's something to be said about a Str 10(for boosted cast) bolt that hits automatically and penetrates ranks. 

4.  The Curse of Anraheir - Most underrated spell in the list IMO. It deserves its own paragraph. It has fantastic range, is easy to cast and most of all the secondary effect is often overlooked.

 The spell states that ALL terrain (other than impassable) is treated as dangerous terrain.  As shown on pg 116 of the BRB open terrain is one of the 4 types of terrain and so is treated as dangerous terrain for purposes of this spell.  In addition, the unit fails Dangerous Terrain tests on 1's and 2's making it incredibly dangerous.  Now where the real synergy lies is with Gnoblar Trappers.  When an enemy charges a unit of trappers, they will take 2 Dangerous Terrain Tests, 1 for charging because of the spell, and one for completing a charge against the trappers.  Note that they will be failing on 1's and 2's for both tests.  This combo will account on average for 44% of the enemy unit dying to dangerous terrain tests!  This can cripple those large units that people are so fond of playing right now.  Just the other day I did this to a 45 man unit of White Lions who only made it to combat with 22 left- leaving them much more vulnerable to the rest of the army.   

5.  The Savage Beast of Horros-  Makes one character a complete monster in combat with at least S8 and 7 attacks ( not counting additional equipment/item bonuses).  Makes even our casters capable of destroying enemy combat characters.  But the best part is the boosted version which will make all your characters unstoppable killing machines.  With a centrally placed battle line ( or death star unit) you can easily affect 4 characters.  Assuming 4 characters are affected thats something along the lines of 28+ attacks at either S7 or S8!  Granted you will need 5-6 dice to get it off comfortably but its well worth it when you obliterate the enemy.  Another spell that ogres can fully take advantage of since even our casters get massive benefits from it.

6.  Transformation of Kadon - Usually looked at like the black sheep of the lot, its high casting value and remains in play status make it unpopular for many armies.  The usual reasoning is that you can simply dispel it and turn the fragile wizard back into human form and kill him.  Well ogres aren't fragile and I actually prefer my casters in close combat so that doesn't affect me at all. 

Looking at the monsters you can choose from a Black Hydra (strong, durable, S4 breath weapon), Feral Manticore (useful if you really need that killing blow), or the Horned Dragon ( tough, weak breath weapon).  Overall I would rate this spell as slightly below average since the other spells can give you similar stats without the drawbacks.  Exception would be if you want to go all out and go for the Mountain Chimera or the Great Fire Dragon as those are the most powerful monsters in the game.  Combined with Grut's Sickle the casting cost is not too prohibitive either. 
Note: You can turn in to a monster with a breath weapon, use it,  and later on transform back into the monster again and get another breath weapon.  Useful tidbit but not game-changing.

So there is the rundown on the spells so now lets take a look at what units benefit most from the lore.

Lore Attribute:  We probably won't be taking advantage of the lore attribute too much but it is useful for casting Wildform on Mournfangs.

2 of the spells can be cast with in bubble effects making our characters monsters in close combat.  So I would say that a centrally place battle line or death star unit is essential to utilizing every aspect of the lore. 

Curse of Anraheir should be combined with Gnoblar Trappers whenever possible because of the incredible synergy between the two so at least a couple units would be idea.  I personally am using 3 right now.

Wildform is always useful and Amber Spear is a pretty nice ranged attack ( useful for making the enemy come to you).  Both spells are useful in most army setups.

Overall, you want the enemy to come to grips with you, preferably funneling towards the center where you can take full advantage of your bubble effect spells.  To achieve this you will probably want at least some shooting to create incentive to come to close combat.

Thank you for reading, and tell me your experiences with the Beast Master!

I have used a Beasts Slaughtermaster in a Leadbelcher shooting army and it worked great. The weathering my opponents units took from the Trappers, Amber Spear, Curse and such made him easy prey to my Troops when he got close. Still I think that Heavens is better here tough in most situations.

Not sure about that reading on Anraheir.  Would need to check my book and faqs. 

Reading it the other way, I considered the spell somewhat underwhelming - even with trappers - I'm not expecting my opponents to play into charging trappers with elite infantry blocks.  My group also might just not play with as much traversed terrain as others (and I could see where a game with multiple forests and other unavoidable roadblocks would make this spell more appealing).  If that is really how it's played, with open plain being dangerous, it's a much more attractive spell.

I've been considering running a 3 caster army once I have more ogres (brand new to the army).  1 beasts slaughtermaster, 1 beasts butcher, and a maw butcher with the beasts butcher aiming to get Transformation of Kadon after my SM already has his spells.  Not sure if this strategy sees much use but it seems entertaining.  2 casters that potentially have Wyssan's, and the cheaper one can turn into a nasty monster if the winds are kind to me/my opponent dispels the wrong spells.

I like the thought of using lore of beasts for Ogres so much so that I bought and painted a GW Chimera model.  I wish they would FAQ the curse already but most chaps I run into think its open terrain=dangerous if for no other reason than otherwise the spell is kinda pointless.  The biggest problem with the lore I think is this:  The good spells are to be cast in combat but so do our Maw spells therefore your casters will have precious little to do before combat, and while in combat, will be fighting for dice.

I like the thought of using lore of beasts for Ogres so much so that I bought and painted a GW Chimera model.  I wish they would FAQ the curse already but most chaps I run into think its open terrain=dangerous if for no other reason than otherwise the spell is kinda pointless.  The biggest problem with the lore I think is this:  The good spells are to be cast in combat but so do our Maw spells therefore your casters will have precious little to do before combat, and while in combat, will be fighting for dice. 

You have a good point but remember that wildform should be getting cast every turn, the toughness helps out against ranged attacks until we close in.  Amber spear is also good for dealing ranged damage until close combat happens.  Curse also helps out defensively since the -1 to hit applies to ranged attacks as well.  And if you do have a redirector in place it can help create tough decisions for your opponent- they have to choose to stay put or charge and risk losing models. 

The great thing about Grut's Sickle is that it allows for 2 die casting of (nearly) all the spells in the lore of Beasts.  This also frees up dice for your other casters to put on the pressure early on.

This lore always looks great on paper. The problem is that every game I go into with it on my SM, it's always practically useless. I think I just need to give it another chance, but I have much better success with heavens or death, or even LOTGM.

I think the lore is great and when you get the spells you need, it is indeed amazing. I fully agree with you on the Curse of Anraeir. In the BRB "open terrain" is a type of terrain like the others, and they spell clearly indicates that ALL types of terrain should be considered as dangerous. Basically it will prevent the unit from moving, unless your opponent really is ready  to lose 1/3 of his unit. It's a great spell that gives you a lot of control on the battlefield against hordes.

The Transformation is also fantastic on a Slaughtermaster. One big problem with the Transformation is that it is a RiP spell. So normal wizards (elves or humans for example) will see their Transformation dispelled in the opponent's turn, and will then have to face a lot of attacks coming from the unit he is facing, unprotected. With the Slaughtermaster it is not really a problem, with our WS4, T5, W5. It's like we're still transformed

The problem that I have encountered when using the lore is that it is easy for your opponent to prioritize their dispell attempts, for two reasons.

1. The casting values are high, so it's rare that you'll be able to cast many spells. A good example is Wyssan ; at 10+, you take a serious risk if you try to cast it with two dices, even with a lvl 4. That would end your phase prematurely. So you probably need 3, which is often half your dices.

2. In turn 1 or 2, the Transformation, the Savage Beast, even Wyssan's Wildform need not to be dispelled. So they can focus on dispelling the Curse and the Spear (if needed).
When you are in combat, it's the opposite, because your Slaughtermaster probably is in a unit that is in close combat. Unless in specific situations where you can get 3+ characters affected by an upgraded version of the Savage Beast or the Pelt, they can probably focus on dispelling Wyssan and the Transformation. One character with the Pelt or the Savage Beast isn't probably game changing, so they can let that go through.

So in my opinion, an okay lore with many useful spells, but hard to use against a clever opponent.

Basically it will prevent the unit from moving, unless your opponent really is ready  to lose 1/3 of his unit.

Actually when terrain is dangerous you only need to test if you charge, march, pursue or similar longer movements. So moving normally is still an option to avoid it.

if I put a Hunter on a Stonehorn does it still count as a Monster for the Lore Attribute and would even the Hunter's attacks get +1S?

Basically it will prevent the unit from moving, unless your opponent really is ready  to lose 1/3 of his unit.

Actually when terrain is dangerous you only need to test if you charge, march, pursue or similar longer movements. So moving normally is still an option to avoid it.

Good point.  This rule always confused me but I am finally putting it to bed in my head I hope.  The thing that is most confusing is the wording on the Venom Thicket forest which makes you take a dangerous terrain tests for even normal movement.

Curse is probably the next best spell in the lore after the default, with its great utility and massive range.  The whole lore of fits a combat based army very well, but I don't think the upgrade from Maw is worth the butcher tax.  If you are going to have two wizards anyhow, then its definately better than Maw.  The threat of turning into a mountan chimera alone is enough to make people sit on their scroll.

The biggest problem with the lore I think is this:  The good spells are to be cast in combat but so do our Maw spells therefore your casters will have precious little to do before combat, and while in combat, will be fighting for dice. 

So take some more herolevel casters along to cast some nasty spells early on and hopefully draw that dispell scroll before the SM goes to town. You can have a fully equiped BSB and 3 naked 2nd lv. butchers with a dispell scroll in 2400 points. Considering the buff potential from the SM that is not a bad selection and it gives you something to do with every powerdice you'll ever get. You could ditch one caster or some spell levels to invest in equipment.

You could also not worry about pulling that dispell scroll early and just take some firebellies. Have a laugh when blasting fireballs (alongside your operating leadbelchers) which will not be scrolled because of what is to come, and than have a second laugh when combat hits, you do happen to get buffs off and shower your opponent with breath attacks and lots of high strength attacks.

This involves having too many spellcasters, but if any setup can afford it and (despite WS3 casters) even flourish on having that many casters, it is an ogre army with a lore of beasts SM.

I agree that the multiple caster setup could work, especially to have useful spells to cast while still out of close combat.  I might even go as far as having the maw butcher simply be level one to save points and just get two firebellies.  This would give a very good chance of getting flaming sword and the other spells in the list would be good against chaff that gets in the way and hordes( or steadfast blocks) which could possibly hold up our own deathstar unit. And it also puts on the pressure from turn one rather than having to wait till combat to deal significant damage.

I'm starting to like this idea, gonna try it my next battle.

I think Lore of beasts is slightly more offensive and risk taking because it lacks TROLL GUTS!

Troll guts has, hands down, won battles for most if not all of us. I find that beasts is a good lore, no, a great lore; however, I don't think ogres and characters (especially ironguts and mournfangs) lack any offensive power that needs to be suplimented.

I have more issues with protecting my units from magic + shooting + close combat than I have issues with putting out enough damage to win combat. Infact, Troll guts will win you combat if you pass enough regen tests and roll averagely with attacks.

Beasts also lacks to AoE that maw has with 3 of its buffing augments. Wysanns may be better on a single unit, you are guarunteed to have it every battle, but it casts on a higher value and for +2 to the casting value of wysanns you can cast a 12" aoe with bullgorger or toothcracker. The 20+ on troll guts aoe is a high shot to aim for but in a situation where you neeed a buble of protection from an insanely shooty/magically offensive enemy, troll guts is the answer to your prayers every time.

Sure if you need maximum overkill in close combat, lore of beasts is the more effective way to go. I find that lore of the gut maw is more well rounded, especially with braingobbler and bonecrusher to help clear enemy chaff out of your charge lanes. Perhaps my point is that the versatility of the lore of the gut maw in many cases out weighs lore of beasts on the scale of what your slaughter master should be running.

I will make no argument for the other lores available to us because I don't have experience using them; however I can easily see how those lores offer different options where lore of beasts is basically all close combat related with the exception of a CoA and Amber spear.

I will not address transformation of kaddon because you are asking yourself to miscast and I often see that when someone is trying to get off transformation, it is out of desperation and is the only trick left up their sleeve.

Though Troll guts is basically a "crutch for noobs" as many may see it, Troll guts is our best and most easily accessable form of defense for the big blocks that win us battles. Yes hellheart + scroll and whatever other deathfist combos you guys run are great ways to get away without troll guts and they are legitimate strategies; however, troll guts is for the simple player who builds his or her magic phase around defending units that are vital to the success of the battle. Beasts, does not offer any sort of defense except for the pelt and wysanns which fall way short compared to troll guts. Flaming attacks may be the achilles tendon to troll guts, however, It is hard to beat troll guts in every phase of a turn I often find someone has flaming shooting (Dwarfs) but they don't have flaming close combat attacks or visa-versa, still making troll guts useful. Sure the enemy can dispel troll guts, but that is sacrificing their magic phase to do it.

Any feed back on the flaws of my analysis would be great. I was meerly attempting to defend Maw as our go to lore for well rounded army tactics.

I think that the lore of the maw runs into many of the same problems that Beasts does in regards to not being able to cast that often until you need the buffs in close combat. 

Stubborn is completely worthless until you reach combat, and even then its only insurance if you lose, it doesn't help you win.  Bonecrusher is situational at best, it has low(ish) range and has a small range of effective targets.  (High cost, low wound count models)

Bullgorger is fine, but once again you can't make use of it until you reach close combat.
 
Toothcracker I like because +1 T is never a bad thing, but Wyssans does this and +1 Str for only 2 more to cast.  And you are guaranteed to get it unlike this spell.

Braingobbler is another situational spell that because of the BSB rules is quite a bit worse than it was last edition.  Granted it can have a large range if you choose to boost it in order to catch things on the flank but overall it simply doesn't cut it IMO

Trollguts yes, is by far the most powerful spell in the lore and the one you always want to have.  But what happens if the unthinkable happens and you don't get it?  ( Small chance yes, but it has happened to me).  Then you are left with subpar spells that aren't crucial enough to draw out scrolls until its too late.  It is never a good idea to rely solely on one spell to win especially when the rest of the lore doesn't pull its weight.

Each spell is individually not bad, but the overall versatility is lacking I think.  I rarely take any maw caster if I can avoid it other than the butcher tax of course.

I have to disagree with you analysis of Curse of Anraheir. I do not think it is not the intended to work as open ground count as terrain. Consider the situation where a Night Goblin fanatic is released. In the rules it states that if the fanatic is brought into contact with terrain of any kind other than a hill it is destroyed. This would mean that the moment the fanatic is released even on open ground it is destroyed. I cannot see how this is the intention.

Can you clarify this?

Open Ground is still terrain according to the rules.

Open Ground is still terrain according to the rules.

This has been an on going debate, GW has not realeased an FAQ and there are a multitude of well backed up stances on this topic.  The only other spell with this kind of effect (TKs lore) specifically list open ground being included.

Obviously fanatics don't blow up when they are on open ground.

so rage on debaters, but the bottom line is, this will either be predetermined before playing or rolled off every game you play.

I agree with sitaavanu that discussing it prior to starting the game is probably the best way to go. 

Fanatics should not blow up right upon contact with 'open' ground as that would defeat the entire purpose.  I think the rule should be clarified to placed terrain pieces rather than all terrain.

On the other hand, open terrain is a clearly marked type of terrain listed in the book. 

Many people I have played with don't see a problem with the Curse interacting with open terrain but it could be different in your gaming area.  Clarity should always be aimed for though to avoid heated arguments in-game.

Many people I have played with don't see a problem with the Curse interacting with open terrain but it could be different in your gaming area.  Clarity should always be aimed for though to avoid heated arguments in-game.

So fanatics aren't used that much where you play, or do you interpret the same rule differently?

That's a debate I don't get. Open terrain is a type of terrain, look at your BRB. Curse of Anraeir make all type of terrain dangerous. What's the problem really ? There are other spells that work like that...

And then the Fanatic lament... Yes, the Curse is a hard counter to fanatics. So what ?

And then the Fanatic lament... Yes, the Curse is a hard counter to fanatics. So what ?

But that is not really the issue here. If open terrain is a type of terrain, than fanatics can't move across it without spinning out of control, curse or no curse, since the only type of terrain they can cross unharmed are hills.

I say it's a booboo in the fanatic rules, not in the terrain rules.

it's not curse + fanatics

It's poor wording.

Fanatics state that the moment they come into contact with terrain they die.
If open ground = terrain then the moment fanatics are placed, they would die.
This obviously doesn't happen therefor we generally do not consider open ground terrain.
Another example, is the forest wood elves play in their deployment zone may not touch any other piece of terrain, if open ground was terrain than we could not place this forest.

The counter argument is obviously that open ground is listed as a type of terrain in the BRB.

The only other spell that works this way (out of TK) specifically states that it does affect open ground.  Which you would think 'if GW realized they needed to put that wording in the TK spell they would certianly add it to the lore of beast to clear up any confustion.'  However, GW has not put it in an official errata/faq which leads some people to think 'if GW specifically put that call out on the TK spell and not on the lore of beast spell then clearly they are meant to function differently.'

Another example, is the forest wood elves play in their deployment zone may not touch any other piece of terrain, if open ground was terrain than we could not place this forest.

Considering the woodelf book is a 6th ed. book, I'd say this argument doesn't really hold; other than that you put the problem very clear. Open ground is clearly a terrain type though, and while it is unfortunate (and most probably unintended) that fanactics cannot surivive on anything but a bare hill, it is in line with the rules. The tomb king spell is very clear, the beast spell not so much, but does it have to be that clear? It seems to me the TK spell is overly thorough, while the beasts spell is sufficiently thorough. Being overly so isn't a crime though and sufficient is just what it needs to be. It also seems fanatics and wood elf forests are just useless this edition; in a RAW sense of course, I can't imagine anyone making a deal out of it.

he tomb king spell is very clear, the beast spell not so much, but does it have to be that clear? It seems to me the TK spell is overly thorough, while the beasts spell is sufficiently thorough. Being overly so isn't a crime though and sufficient is just what it needs to be.

If it was sufficiently clear this thread, and a similar thread on every other forum for a faction that can use the lore wouldn't crop up every couple of months.

Fanatics were written in this edition, I don't understand where you are having touble understanding that GW doesn't treat 'open terrain' the same in all their writings.

Fanatics state that they blow up the moment they touch terrian.
If open ground = terrain, than as soon as they touch the table they would blow up.
This is obviously not the intention of the rules as you would never be able to play them.

So, does open ground = terrain? are you seriously going to tell every O&G that as soon as their 75 pts of fanatics hit the table that they instantly die because they 'touched terrain'?

What gives one interpretation that it was specifically left out of curse more credit than it was accidentally left out?

edit:

I don't understand where you are having touble understanding that GW doesn't treat 'open terrain' the same in all their writings.

How can I ever play a game if I as a reader don't treat it the same in every reading?

/edit

Open ground/terrain has it's own heading under 'types of terrain'. Hence open terrain = terrain. I don't see how you can even debate that, it couldn't be more clear.

It would follow that fanatics and wood elf forests are unplayable, I don't see how you can debate that either. However, any normal person would admit to let this one slide and commit oneself to the most important rule, allow fanatics to cross open ground unharmed and allow woodelf forests to deploy.

The spell related problem seems to crop up because people want to change the BRB so that armybooks (O&G, WE) may function. Either BRB or armybooks need changing, none has been changed though, so there is no debate, only a need for an errata. This needs attending, but I fail to see how accomodating for this rules oddity through the most important rule (the only available tool present at the moment) would effect interpreting the curse of anrahir. This spell functions fine, and allowing for this spell to effect open terrain entails no conflict with the BRB. In fact the rules declare it. The fact that a similar spell specifically allows for it doesn't change that, that's just an extra. The fact the fanatics are screwed doesn't change that either.

I'm fully in agreement with DaGobbo. I'll be damned before I let someone cheat me (yes, I'm using cheat) out of the DT tests from Curse!

I'm fully in agreement with DaGobbo. I'll be damned before I let someone cheat me (yes, I'm using cheat) out of the DT tests from Curse!

So forcing your point of view on an unclear rule is fine but someone saying their fanatics get to hit the table and not instantly die is cheating?

The only thing I can see someone hanging their hat on in favor of curse forcing tests but fanatics not dying is the word "piece".  Does Open terrain fit the "piece of terrain" verbage of the fanatic wording?

once again it's unclear.

It could be considered one big piece or the argument could be made that because it covers the table it's not 'a piece'.  Then again if I have a GIGANTIC hill resulting in the entire board being elevated does that mean it is not a piece of terrain?  If you have put down d6+4 piece of terrain does one of those pieces HAVE to be open ground?  What happens if you don't put down the universal section of open ground?  Can you only play on the hills/forest that you put down?

It's a poorly written section of the book that has supporting evidence on both sides of the fence on how it should be read and played.

I'm fully in agreement with DaGobbo. I'll be damned before I let someone cheat me (yes, I'm using cheat) out of the DT tests from Curse!

So forcing your point of view on an unclear rule is fine but someone saying their fanatics get to hit the table and not instantly die is cheating?

Oh, I'll let you have the Fanatics. Those are obviously the victim of a disconnect between the guy who wrote that section in the BRB and the guy who wrote the armybook (would be pretty embarrassing if they're the same person). The main rulebook quite clearly states that open terrain is a form of terrain. There is nothing unclear about that.

And if you want to get REAL rules-lawyery about it, the Fanatic's entry describes contacting a "piece" of terrain. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't describe the open terrain that constitutes the table as a "piece" - I know I wouldn't.

Once again it's not a matter of what you'll 'let the player do'.  It's a matter of the intention of the rules, was open grounded intended to be considered terrain?

Your ASSUMPTION that the army book writers had a disconnect from the BRB terrain section guys is no more founded or unfounded than the ASSUMPTION that the guy who wrote curse had a disconnect from the BRB terrain section guys.

Because there is nothing substantial enough to outweigh the other side holding an adamant belief to one view or the other is folly.

In the end, it doesn't matter who had the disconnect or not. The only fact we do have is that open terrain is considered a type of terrain as per the BRB, and that's the only relevant fact for a spell like Curse of Anraheir. Its value has to be judged on that context, because that's what the book says. If it means that Fanatics as written don't function, well, that's too bad for the Fanatics. RAW doesn't lie.

By RAW SM/butcher can't wear armor because Iron Fist are not written as 'armor', there are quite a few arguments were RAW is ignored.

Or by raw the Iron Curse Icon doesn't work against the Ironblaster.

etc etc our own army book is one of the most definitive sources to show that RAW is more of a guideline in GWs hands.

By RAW SM/butcher can't wear armor because Iron Fist are not written as 'armor', there are quite a few arguments were RAW is ignored.

Actually, I think the whole point of the FAQ entry regarding SM/Butcher's wearing of armor is that by RAW they can (even if it was unintended). 

Per the BRB, pg 500:  "The only exception to this is when a Wizard has armour as part of his standard equipment or an option for 'normal' armour, such as light armour, or a shield. Such sorcerers have trained their mind to focus and can wear armour without confusion or penalty."

Per the Ogre armybook, pg 32:  "An ironfist works in exactly the same way as a shield."  and also "An Ogre using an ironfist benefits from all of the rules for shields..."

It's pretty clear that the ability to wear an ironfist is what grants our wizards the ability to wear armor - RAW.

-Snark

And there you have it. And yes, by RAW the Ironcurse Icon doesn't work against the Ironblaster. I wouldn't allow anyone their saves against it.

But the FAQ says otherwise, which was the point.

So basically, fantatics should get FAQ'd because open ground is terrain.

@snark do some digging you'll find easily over 40 pages of thread discussing the topic cumulating in an FAQ.  You'll aslo find references to the books writer stating that he did not intend for ironfist to be armor which is why he didn't state that they were but was overruled by the internal decision makers at the company.  It is very much not that clear.

This Lore has definite synergy in my Gnoblar Trapper heavy list.

As far as fanatics exploding in open ground I won't be playing people who consider this to be the case as they are likely to quibble about numerous other rules as well. (I don't use Greenskins much and Fanatics will only explode if they hit a feature other than open ground when we play).

OK, guys, give GW some credit. Putting war into a game is HARD. Scaling down a 12' ogre into a 2" figure and creating a backstory and making rules for how it fights is HARD. They have created a pretty awesome game, though.

OK. So the rules: As I see it, there are about two ends of the spectrum pertaining to rules:

1) Friendly-Style- what makes sense flavor-wise, following the basic rules. This way is good for friendly games. Games Workshop usually wants this to happen. The RAW rules are in the books, but the flavor rules are fun. I'm not saying that playing RAW isn't fun, but it get's annoying to look at books a bunch. This is reflected in "The Most Important Rule" in the Warhammer 40k book.

2) Tourney-Style- Giving up "The Most Important Rule" and going all RAW.

So, Friendly Style, it's a curse- and a fairly powerful one too. It's like beast Trollguts, so I'm fine with it. We just hold one unit still, and charge them, very effectually holding one unit. It's not like the game is over! I'm fine with this reading. RAW style too. I mean, it's not like they totally planned greedy fisting either... Or maybe they did... And this too... Hmm...
S

Sitaavanu, are you a lawyer or something ? Please stop reading the rules like one and use some common sense for god's sake !

You come here as a big defender of RAW, and at the end your only argument that open terrain isn't a type of terrain is a comparison with the fanatic rule . All that against the section of the BRB that COULDN'T BE MORE CLEAR. You've got one chapter "Types of Terrain", a sub-chapter "Open Terrain" saying explicitely that the board is of that type. Curse of Anraeir works on "all types of terrain". What else do you need ?

Now yes, it gives you the opportunity to be a d*ck and use a very lame reading of the fanatic rule to kill them on open terrain. Quite frankly I would be glad to see you trying to argue that in a game against a O&G opponent. I'll grab some popcorns and enjoy the show, maybe you're good at dodging punches I don't know.

Really this kind of discussion is why GW's erratas are full of dumb questions, because people just can't RTFM and use common sense to enjoy the game. If I had to write them I couldn't prevent myself from being sarcastic in 85% of the answers.

I eyed something else in the rulebook just now that might complicate things. The entry for open ground says it doesn't effect the game. What does that mean? This can be read in context, meaning nothing more than that it doesn't have special rules by virtue of being open ground. It can also be read much stricter, and imply that any interaction other than being a physical support for everything on top of the table doesn't exist ... except perhaps when specifically stated? Any rule can be overwritten, but how specific is 'specific'? If you think it through, the second reading result in the first I think: open ground/terrain has no special rules, that's it.

And if you want to get REAL rules-lawyery about it, the Fanatic's entry describes contacting a "piece" of terrain. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't describe the open terrain that constitutes the table as a "piece" - I know I wouldn't.

This reading would solve all problems I guess, type of terrain =/= piece of terrain. Fanatics can be used, the curse works on open terrain and that TK spell is just overjoyus in it's wording. Since nobody I know refers to the table as a piece of terrain it seems a very plausible solution; I can't find RAW support for declaring open ground a piece of terrain either.

Found another relevant (in red) quote in the BRB (pg 117):  "As such, cavalry, monstrous cavalry and chariots treat all terrain other than open ground as being dangerous terrain ..."

It seems clear once again that open ground is a subset of "terrain" and therefore must be excluded when referring to the types of terrain dangerous to cavalry, MC, and chariots.

I also find it interesting that the phrasing "treat all terrain other than open ground as being dangerous terrain" from the quote above is remarkably similar to the phrasing in the Curse of Anraheir (BRB, pg 493):  "treats all terrain (other than impassable terrain) as dangerous terrain"  with only a different exclusion (open ground in the first quote vs impassable terrain in the second).

-Snark

I'm with Snark on this, I think it's pretty damned clear that "open" is a type of terrain and should be treated as such, and the fanatics behaviour hinges on the word "peice".

I don't think it's at all unclear about what constitutes a "piece of terrain". 

- The BRB states that "any terrain not specifically classed as something else is to be treated as open ground. (pg 116)"  {once again, open ground is terrain that is not classed as something else}
- The first significant use of the term "piece of terrain" is on pg 142, where we are instructed to "Place at least 1d6+4 pieces of terrain upon the battlefied, choosing the pieces from your terrain collection (selecting which of the rules on pages 116-131 you will use to represent each piece."

Therefore "pieces of terrain" are classed as something else and have their own rules, and open ground cannot be a "piece of terrain".  Open ground is still terrain (as proven above), it is simply not a "piece of terrain".

-Snark

Hey everyone, this is getting a little off topic. Maybe someone should create a thread in the rules section to continue this discussion further.

Myself, I've always wanted to try a Beasts Slaughtermaster in the hopes of using Transformation of Kadon. I like the idea of my wizard turning into a big monster and stomping face. It would probably be a lot worse on the battlefield, but I think it's a fun idea.

Honestly F2C I just think it's amusing watching people on the forums flop around like fish out of water when popular opinion changes.  I had brought up curse effecting open ground on a thread about 2 weeks after the main book was released and popular opinion at that time was that it didn't work for similar reasons to those I've listed.  And at that time I was a d*** for not being able to clearly read the rules and now I'm a d*** for reiterating what other people have said.

Also I love how being the level headed one that says 'talk with your local opponent about it before hand' 4 times in this thread is mostly ignored and the jacks going 'I DON'T WANT TO BE CHEATED BY BEING TOLD I CAN'T DO IT!' over and over and over again without really being able to say anything else besides 'it's so obvious' are considered the guys in the right.
 
Doesn't matter anyways in the end everyone will do exactly what I said anyways and either talk about the jerk on the forum that just couldn't understand why it works one way or the other (by the way I NEVER made a stance on this thread simply pointed out the rules inconsistencies with the different view points) and end up talking about it with the people they play with.  Or they will just play it their way and if their opponent is fluent enough in the rules to understand the complications of treating open ground as terrain will get on a forum and this thread will spring to life somewhere else, once again resulting in a discussion between the players.


Also I'm curious where do you get that I'm a big defender of RAW from in this discussion?  Or is that a comment about other threads?  I would NEVER argue that fanatics can't hit the table, i'd like to see rothgar who has stated several time 'well then they are just screwed' do that though.  And that's all I've pointed out in my post.  Is how absurd it would make the game if you treated open ground as terrain to the people who have cited that one section of the BRB multiple times ignoring all of the other contradicting and intuitive evidence.  Such as, if WE can't put their forest so that it overlaps with terrain why do they tell the WE player how to put down this piece of terrain that can't be played?  If fanatics die when they touch a piece of terrain why are there rules for how to use them in a book that was written AFTER that book came out?  So far we have 'because i want them too' 'because it's obvious' and 'i guess their screwed' as answers.

as far as a beast SM is concerned (to be back on topic and what not)

Beast is a lore much like the maw, it focuses on buffs.  Unlike the maw however it lacks synergy within our army in 3 ways.

1) the lore attribute is functionally worthless in ogres
2) the big buffs are character specific and due to the high cost of our characters we can not afford to spam them (unlike empire for example)
3) the buffs are unit specific with no option to bubble out

On a specific spell basis
Wildform- we are all aware that +1str & T are awesome.
Pans & Savage - expensive to cast and lacks the mulititude of characters that makes these spells really scary in other list. It is true that it could push you to wounding on 2s or being wounded on 6s but in most situations wildform will do the same.
Amber Spear - we have access to the best cannons, we really don't need this at all but hey it's there i guess
Flock - worthless magic missle atleast the maws str 2 ignores armor
Curse - see above discussion, depending on how you play it you will find the spell to be either very good or AMAZING.
Transformation - because it is RiP your opponent can tactically dispel it making it a gamble as you'll never be sure exactly what stats or items you will have in a combat.

I'm not a huge fan of the maw but I think it is in every way more functional for a SM than beast.

Agreed, lore attribute helps out a lot too.

The transformation is pretty sweet, but not being able to cast anymore isn't that nice. Can we still dispell? It seems so. If you use it, it should be for a short time anyway so personally I wouldn't mind having it dispelled next turn. I was wondering whether you have to remain within the unit after the transformation. The spell description says you can, but do you have to?

Since a lot of people consider the curse of anraheir an important spell, i'd say discussing this problem when analysing this lore is pretty important, so I'd still like to reply some more.

I would NEVER argue that fanatics can't hit the table, i'd like to see rothgar who has stated several time 'well then they are just screwed' do that though.

He allready did.

And that's all I've pointed out in my post.  Is how absurd it would make the game if you treated open ground as terrain to the people who have cited that one section of the BRB multiple times ignoring all of the other contradicting and intuitive evidence.

A carefull reader might have noticed that solely reiterating the same section of the BRB is not what happened at all. Those people that keep refering to the brb have done so because in isolation, it is very clear what the brb says about open ground. Denying that is incomprehensible to me. If you add other parts of the rules to that, certain complications seem to appear. For some reason you seem to defend the position that this means the brb is in the wrong here, why? For some reason you seem to defend the position that the problems concerning fanatics incurs a problem with the curse of anraheir, why? All we say this has not been sufficiently defended.

Another position, defended by me for instance, is that there is no solid reason to declare the BRB flawed in this regard. I don't think it is a position that needs defending, it needs to be proven wrong. Anyway, that doesn't mean the problems you have cited are suddenly null and void. Several suggestions have been made to solve those problem. One was following the most important rule and play to the intention of the rules (I think we all said that in some way). According to our position that involved holding that while fanatics are in fact boned, it should not be played like that because it is a 100% obvious that cannot be the intention (an opinion you continously ignored in your replies btw). According to your position that involved altering the brb, resulting in a problem for the curse of anraheir. Another solution was ruling that the table is not a piece, a solution which you think to open a whole other can of worms. I think most of us don't see those problems you cited as there don't seem to be any rules that are related to those problems. For example, where does it say that we only play on pieces of terrain? Most of the time the rules mention the table, regardless of terrain. Neither is it a problem for setting the terrain, as it is clearly stated that default terrain is open terrain. Anything not set is thus open terrain.

As you can see a lot more has been done than bigmouthing and merely repeating what some people think to be obvious. This discussion has continously been developing, but with an eye on a certain position from which to proceed. The ultimate goal of such a procedure is to show that both positions cannot be right at the same moment and subsequently that one cannot be held over the other, so yes, sometimes people repeat themselves, as you yourself have done. That doesn't mean nothing besides repeating is being said.

I can see the position you defend here (whether your own or not) is different, I cannot see a defense for it. I therefor try to find solutions from another position, and think the answer given by Polybus to solve all the problems you mentioned.

A carefull reader might have noticed that solely reiterating the same section of the BRB is not what happened at all. Those people that keep refering to the brb have done so because in isolation, it is very clear what the brb says about open ground. Denying that is incomprehensible to me.

Please quote where I have denied this

If you add other parts of the rules to that, certain complications seem to appear. For some reason you seem to defend the position that this means the brb is in the wrong here, why? For some reason you seem to defend the position that the problems concerning fanatics incurs a problem with the curse of anraheir, why? All we say this has not been sufficiently defended.

This has nothing to do with curse + fanatics, it has to do with curse + terrain and its implications on fanatcis + terrain

I don't think it is a position that needs defending, it needs to be proven wrong. Anyway, that doesn't mean the problems you have cited are suddenly null and void.

quote me please, i do not reall stating that any issues are null and void

Several suggestions have been made to solve those problem. One was following the most important rule and play to the intention of the rules (I think we all said that in some way). According to our position that involved holding that while fanatics are in fact boned, it should not be played like that because it is a 100% obvious that cannot be the intention (an opinion you continously ignored in your replies btw).

The issue with this is that you have 2 contradicting intentions in one thought.  You state that we should play by the intention of the rules, which for curse to affect open ground would consider open ground terrain which is stated in the brb.  And at the same time the intention of open ground to not be treated like open ground which seems to be supported by the way the army books and faqs are written.  In ETC (not turning this into an ETC conversation but as the only point of refrence I have for how I read the rules) you use the following guidlines for determining rules faq/errata>armybook>brb.  So if it is 100% obvious you should be following the errata and multiple armybooks as you stated and supported by one of the biggest tournament scense does it not make sense that the intention of the rules is to  view open ground as the empty table space and not as a terrain feature?

According to your position that involved altering the brb, resulting in a problem for the curse of anraheir.

please quote where I have insuiated that the BRB should be changed

Another solution was ruling that the table is not a piece, a solution which you think to open a whole other can of worms. I think most of us don't see those problems you cited as there don't seem to be any rules that are related to those problems. For example, where does it say that we only play on pieces of terrain? Most of the time the rules mention the table, regardless of terrain. Neither is it a problem for setting the terrain, as it is clearly stated that default terrain is open terrain. Anything not set is thus open terrain.

I don't disagree that this is a simple & effective solution, however it causes issues.  One you have no way of backing up the statement that a building is a piece of terrain and open terrain is not.  I beleive the line of logic here is that if the terrain feature consumes the majority of the board it is not 'a piece' (once again no text to back this up).  By this logic if I bring a 4x6 hill and put it down as a scree slope all the sudden the entire board is taking dangerous terrain checks but it doesn't qualify as apiece of terrain but a smaller hill would?  To me that does not make any sense such the only logical conclusion we can draw is that any terrain feature is considered a piece of terrain.  This contradicts the simple solution as such doesn't hold water IMO.

Additionally, it does not explicitly say you can only play on terrain, however terrain dictacts how models can move and interact during the course of a game.  So it becomes a void if you do not have a piece of terrain to play on as you have no rules to back up how movement is affected.

As you can see a lot more has been done than bigmouthing and merely repeating what some people think to be obvious. This discussion has continously been developing, but with an eye on a certain position from which to proceed. The ultimate goal of such a procedure is to show that both positions cannot be right at the same moment and subsequently that one cannot be held over the other, so yes, sometimes people repeat themselves, as you yourself have done. That doesn't mean nothing besides repeating is being said.

but it doesn't provide a solution either which i would view as the ultimate goal.

I can see the position you defend here (whether your own or not) is different, I cannot see a defense for it. I therefor try to find solutions from another position, and think the answer given by Polybus to solve all the problems you mentioned.

As I have stated though and no one has been able to provide a concentrated solution for there are issues with that solution.



The reason I posted so many 'please quote mes' is because I never said many of those things and I beleive my position is misunderstood.  So to clarify, my position is the following:
'the rules regarding open terrain are vague at best I beleive they were written as a place holder to avoid a 'void' situation where a rules lawyer would get all uppity and argue that because there is no rules for the empty space on the board a player could not move etc or something equally ridiculous (clearly not the intention but not explicitly stated otherwise).  Subsequently when curse was written the game designers being human and flawed wrote a vague description that they all agreed on but did not clearly write.  Combined with the vagueness of the open terrain section this causes a conundrum.  After the edition had been played and this question came up multiple times when they wrote the TK spell they made sure to include a section to clarify the spell did in fact affect open terrain however have still failed to clarify that point on what their original intent with curse was.  We are left to debate if the original intent was to only affect units in terrain or if it was meant to be a universal spell but either stance becomes muddied by other interactions.  For example the stance that curse effects open ground means that open ground is a piece of terrain as such a model that would die when impacting terrain could never be used (without an errata to either the model or the brb neither of which exist).  By stating that open ground is not affected by curse you call into question the validity of BRB and the wording on the TK spell makes no sense by stating 'terrain (including open ground)'.  As there is no clean solution that doesn't require us to make assumptions on how WE FEEL (with no overwhelming evidence on one side or the other) the game should work the best way to handle this is to discuss it with the people you play with until there is an errata.'

Personally I think lore of beast is one of the weaker lores for a level 4 without a very specific army design, that does not mean though that I should dig for a way to make it more than what it is.  I think that an ogre should hit harder than a halbadier, but that doesn't make it so.

For example the stance that curse effects open ground means that open ground is a piece of terrain as such a model that would die when impacting terrain could never be used (without an errata to either the model or the brb neither of which exist).

Sorry for me this is the big difference between curse and fanatics: the wording in curse is "the unit treats all terrain (other than impassable terrain) as dangerous terrain", the word for fanatics is "It contacts a piece of terrain of any kind other than a hill" (note my emphasis)

Using logic (or what seems to be logic for me) all pieces of terrain is terrain, however not all terrain is pieces of terrain. So I would not call the table or board I am playing on a piece of terrain, however I would call it terrain. As open ground is terrain fanatics can cross it as long as it is not a piece of terrain.

For me terrain is anything you are playing on, however pieces of terrain are self contained blocks that are placed on the table/board before the game starts.

Using logic (or what seems to be logic for me) all pieces of terrain is terrain, however not all terrain is pieces of terrain.

And as i explained there is nothing to back that up besides our own personal bias and instincts.  It's logical to me that if someone is crazed enough to push their body to the extreme of swinging twice as fast as they physically could otherwise (frenzy) that they wouldn't have the mental capacity to restrain from charging.  However despite my thoughts and opinions there is an entry in the rules that says otherwise.  There is nothing in the rules that substantiates a distinction between terrain and piece of terrain.

The reason I posted so many 'please quote mes' is because I never said many of those things and I beleive my position is misunderstood.

Glad to be of service

A carefull reader might have noticed that solely reiterating the same section of the BRB is not what happened at all. Those people that keep refering to the brb have done so because in isolation, it is very clear what the brb says about open ground. Denying that is incomprehensible to me.

Please quote where I have denied this

You do so on several occasions, right here for instance:

If open ground = terrain then the moment fanatics are placed, they would die.
This obviously doesn't happen therefor we generally do not consider open ground terrain.

This has nothing to do with curse + fanatics, it has to do with curse + terrain and its implications on fanatcis + terrain

I agree. The implication is that fanatics don't work. BUT, those implications are existing with or without the curse. The fanatic problem doesn cease to exist with the disappearence of the curse. Therefor I (and others) don't think it plausible to deny the curse anything on account of the implications for fanatics.

I don't think it is a position that needs defending, it needs to be proven wrong. Anyway, that doesn't mean the problems you have cited are suddenly null and void.

quote me please, i do not reall stating that any issues are null and void

Ah yes, sorry. I didn't mean that you imply that. What I meant was that regardless of which position we hold, some of the problems are there and thus need attending.

The issue with this is that you have 2 contradicting intentions in one thought.  You state that we should play by the intention of the rules, which for curse to affect open ground would consider open ground terrain which is stated in the brb.  And at the same time the intention of open ground to not be treated like open ground which seems to be supported by the way the army books and faqs are written. In ETC (not turning this into an ETC conversation but as the only point of refrence I have for how I read the rules) you use the following guidlines for determining rules faq/errata>armybook>brb.  So if it is 100% obvious you should be following the errata and multiple armybooks as you stated and supported by one of the biggest tournament scense does it not make sense that the intention of the rules is to view open ground as the empty table space and not as a terrain feature?

Ah, ok. I did not mean to present 2 contradicting thought. The problem here is that there is no faq or armybook trumping the brb. They do not contradict eachother, they merely present an inconvenience for fanatics. This is where intent comes into play. Normally it is difficult to talk about intent, but in this case it is clear that fanatics should not opperate this way. While there is no contradiction, and thus no trumping, there has been made a fault. Which brings us to the next issue.

According to your position that involved altering the brb, resulting in a problem for the curse of anraheir.

please quote where I have insuiated that the BRB should be changed

You do not directly claim so, but you insinuate it constantly. Like I said a fault had been made with regard to fanatics. Your solution is to state that open ground is not terrain, but that solution is in direct violation with the BRB. Your solution therefor suggests change in the BRB. I would suggest another course of action. If open ground is also a terrain piece, I suggest a change in the O&G armybook, namely that both hills and open ground do not effect the fanatic. I hope I have removed the contradiction in my thought. I think that playing to the intent of the rules requires this change in the fanatic rules, and not the change in the BRB you suggest.

I don't disagree that this is a simple & effective solution, however it causes issues.  One you have no way of backing up the statement that a building is a piece of terrain and open terrain is not.

Actually we have, buildings are stated as terrain pieces, while open ground is not (as far as I can tell

I beleive the line of logic here is that if the terrain feature consumes the majority of the board it is not 'a piece' (once again no text to back this up).  By this logic if I bring a 4x6 hill and put it down as a scree slope all the sudden the entire board is taking dangerous terrain checks but it doesn't qualify as apiece of terrain but a smaller hill would? To me that does not make any sense...

I agree it doesn't make sense. I think it would declare the entire board dangerous terrain, but it would also be a terrain piece. It is something you place on the table isn't it? I therefor disagree with the following.

...such the only logical conclusion we can draw is that any terrain feature is considered a piece of terrain.  This contradicts the simple solution as such doesn't hold water IMO.

Additionally, it does not explicitly say you can only play on terrain, however terrain dictacts how models can move and interact during the course of a game.  So it becomes a void if you do not have a piece of terrain to play on as you have no rules to back up how movement is affected.

That is not true. Rules for terrain give extra rules. There is nothing that suggests the normal rules for movement require any terrain at all. It just needs a playing field (which by default happens to be open ground).

but it doesn't provide a solution either which i would view as the ultimate goal.

Agreed, we are working on that no?

I can see the position you defend here (whether your own or not) is different, I cannot see a defense for it. I therefor try to find solutions from another position, and think the answer given by Polybus to solve all the problems you mentioned.

As I have stated though and no one has been able to provide a concentrated solution for there are issues with that solution.

I hope I have attended to this by virtue of the above.

The reason I posted so many 'please quote mes' is because I never said many of those things and I beleive my position is misunderstood.  So to clarify, my position is the following:

'the rules regarding open terrain are vague at best I beleive they were written as a place holder to avoid a 'void' situation where a rules lawyer would get all uppity and argue that because there is no rules for the empty space on the board a player could not move etc or something equally ridiculous (clearly not the intention but not explicitly stated otherwise).

As you might have noticed, I don't see this void I don't think the rules for open terrain aren't vague at all.

Subsequently when curse was written the game designers being human and flawed wrote a vague description that they all agreed on but did not clearly write.  Combined with the vagueness of the open terrain section this causes a conundrum.

Idem.

After the edition had been played and this question came up multiple times when they wrote the TK spell they made sure to include a section to clarify the spell did in fact affect open terrain however have still failed to clarify that point on what their original intent with curse was. We are left to debate if the original intent was to only affect units in terrain or if it was meant to be a universal spell but either stance becomes muddied by other interactions.

Now I will merely repeat myself. The fact that the TK spell is even more clear, doesn't change the fact the beast spell is also clear. That's how I see it anyway.

For example the stance that curse effects open ground means that open ground is a piece of terrain as such a model that would die when impacting terrain could never be used (without an errata to either the model or the brb neither of which exist).  By stating that open ground is not affected by curse you call into question the validity of BRB

Indeed, so why would one state that

As there is no clean solution that doesn't require us to make assumptions on how WE FEEL (with no overwhelming evidence on one side or the other) the game should work the best way to handle this is to discuss it with the people you play with until there is an errata.'

That is true. I like that we are able to discuss it at length outside of a game though. A discussion like the one we have been having so far would be dreadfull during a game. I also feel an interpretation has been presented that solves the issues at hand however. IMO it has been a fruitfull discussion.

I like pancakes.

I like pancakes.

So do I, especially with ...

insert 5 screens of text.


Sorry for taking up all that space. I just don't know when to quite ones the ball starts rolling. I do think it was usefull though.

By where I live we have a great pancake/belguim waffle place you guys should come by sometime and try it.

quote hell is preventing a clear response but in short:

A carefull reader might have noticed that solely reiterating the same section of the BRB is not what happened at all. Those people that keep refering to the brb have done so because in isolation, it is very clear what the brb says about open ground. Denying that is incomprehensible to me.

my statement that you quoted me on was intended in a more phylisophical tone rather than a defiant one.  I was expressing if x than y rather y!

I agree. The implication is that fanatics don't work. BUT, those implications are existing with or without the curse.

Exactly which is what I had tried to express by stating the issue is about how the terrain rules read.

Ah, ok. I did not mean to present 2 contradicting thought. The problem here is that there is no faq or armybook trumping the brb. They do not contradict eachother, they merely present an inconvenience for fanatics. This is where intent comes into play. Normally it is difficult to talk about intent, but in this case it is clear that fanatics should not opperate this way. While there is no contradiction, and thus no trumping, there has been made a fault. Which brings us to the next issue.

which is think is where we have a similiar but diverate thought process.  As i stated in my point of view, obviously fanatics are suppose whirl around the field and we can all agree on that intent.  But with open ground being considered terrain (the basis upon which one interpertation of curse works) they can not.  There are other refrences to this within army books such as WE forest not being able to be placed on another piece of terrain, so why give them a forest if they can not be put down? There is an obvious intent for the WE to be able to play a forest.  So there are multiple points in which we can see the intent being that open ground is not considered as 'terrain'.  This clearly contradicts what is in the BRB stating that is terrain.  In your mind the BRB intent is more important than the armybook.  I am advocating that there is a legitimate argument on both sides and badly needs some form of clarification.

I don't disagree that this is a simple & effective solution, however it causes issues.  One you have no way of backing up the statement that a building is a piece of terrain and open terrain is not.

Actually we have, buildings are stated as terrain pieces, while open ground is not (as far as I can tell)

That doesn't clarify what a 'piece of terrain' is compared to 'terrain'.  So the idea is not water tight, it's good but it has holes.


at any rate we've gone over this to the point of nothing worthwhile surfacing I think.

So kids if you plan on using lore of beast be prepared for a debate or dice roll

I also like strupwafels, but we don't have them here in the states, and unfortuantely I don't think I will be making it to Amsterdam any time soon.

I like that the discussion has turned toward breakfast food.

@sitaavanu: Thank you for taking the time to clarify your position. I still disagree with it (I'm with DaGobbo in that I think the intent in the BRB would trump that of the armybooks), but I understand your position. I'm also perfectly willing to strike a "happy medium", where I get the Curse's effect on open terrain, but my WE opponents get to place a forest and my O&G opponents' Fanatics function.

Well I'm Belgian so you know ... Belgian waffles all day

Same as rothgar. I see your point, but I fully disagree with it.

I like pancakes.

The most sensible post in the whole thread.

Have a gnoblar!

Sooooo.....back on topic....


Has anyone had any games yet with the SM with beasts lore?  If so how did it work/not work and who did you play?  Would you have preferred the Lore of the Maw instead?

I have, because I'm in a challenge against a Bretonnian player where I picked a Beasts SM for obvious reasons : the Curse and the Lance own them hard, and the Transformation is awesome.

In the first game he won me the game by making the opponent's General unit flee off the table when they failed too many dangerous terrain due to the Curse of Anraeir. In the second game he got owned in the second turn with his whole unit when my opponent's mega bus (15 Knights + 1 Lord + 1 Hero) made a 19" charge in my Ironguts.

Another thing to remember with Transformation of Kadon is that your character will likely have to be moved to the side of his unit, as his base size will change. This could potentially mean that he gets removed from combat if things are awkwardly spaced, or if your line is already bigger than your foes'.

you all are missing an important quote on OPEN GROUND rules:

It therefore DOESN'T AFFECT THE GAME, and we don't need to provide any further detail.

Actually I did comment on that last week

I eyed something else in the rulebook just now that might complicate things. The entry for open ground says it doesn't effect the game. What does that mean? This can be read in context, meaning nothing more than that it doesn't have special rules by virtue of being open ground. It can also be read much stricter, and imply that any interaction other than being a physical support for everything on top of the table doesn't exist ... except perhaps when specifically stated? Any rule can be overwritten, but how specific is 'specific'? If you think it through, the second reading result in the first I think: open ground/terrain has no special rules, that's it.

As you can see I don't absolutely know what to make of it, but I'd like to focus on the word therefore. It is true that the rule says open ground doesn't effect the game, but the use of the word therefore indicates that statement (that open ground doesn't effect the game) is an extrapolation of what was said before. IMO it means that open ground just doesn't have any special rules, ergo there is no need to provide further details. I think it means it is a passive kind of terrain that, while not effecting the game itself, can passively participate in creating an effect (like with the tomb king spell). I don't know if this is the correct interpretation, but I think it is clear that those four words you highlight should not be taken in the strictest sense.

In short, it doesn't effect the game, unless otherwise noted ... a provision that applies to all rules I might add.

I really think that this is an over reading....you are making strange interpretations of what GD was thinking while writing that phrase while the phrase is very clear.....Open Ground DON'T AFFECT the game....

saying that something doesn't affect the game but can still partecipate in some effects it's nosense......saying doesn't affect the game ALREADY cover EVERYTHING about the game....this "it doesn't effect the game, unless otherwise noted" it's just your invention ^_^

it doesn't say that it doesn't have special rules or peraps say something like "it doesn't matter what kind of open ground is (plain, snow, desert etc), it doesn't affect the game"......instead it clearly say that open ground don't affect the game.....

...and something that doesn't affect the game doesn't mean it doesn't have special rules....it simply doesn't have any partecipation in the game.....just like in what colours are painted your miniatures, or what colours are your dice, or what kind of one handed weapon does have your hero etc.

and just to clarify, i'm an ogre player and i use a lvl 2 beasts lore butcher so i'm talking against myself...and i don't like that over reading of terrain rules to make Anrehir Curse even more powerful when it's clear that you can't do this.

it's very simple.....the board (open board) is simply a physical support for the game that doesn't have any role in the rules of the game.

it's very simple.....the board (open board) is simply a physical support for the game that doesn't have any role in the rules of the game.

Since that tomb king spell indicates without a doubt the opposite, I cannot concur. I do agree I might overread the use of the word 'therefore', that was why I was asking what others thought about it.

The reason why I thought that phrase in the rules for open ground means as much as not having any special rules is the following.
From the tomb king spell it is obvious that this rule (not effecting the game) can be overwritten. The question now arises in what way it can be overwritten, but the fact that this can be done allready warrants my interpretation. It is a roundabout interpretation though.

1) Open ground doesn't effect the game
2) Open ground doesn't have special rules (apart from 1)
3) there is a clear example that indicates the opposite (tomb king spell)

thus

4) open ground doesn't effect the game, unless otherwise noted
5) 2 + 4 = open ground can participate in creating effects, by virtue of another rule (again, tomb king spell)

thus

6) the BRB merely states that open ground doesn't have special rules. As long as another rule doesn't say anything to the contrary, open ground is indeed nothing other than physical support.

Now we stand before the question whether the wording in the curse of Anrahir for instance is sufficient to overwrite that section. To be honest I don't know anymore; contrary to the tomb king spell it just might not be specific enough.

i don't have tomb kings codex here at work...can you pearps write here the exact wording of that curse? tnx

edit: found it....and yes you are right, it states an exception for open grounds......and it's ok for me ^_^
but the problem here is that that TK curse CLEARLY STATE that EXCEPTION to the general rule for open ground not affecting the game....

....but Anrehir Curse doesn't! ......TK curse states "even open grounds".........Anrehir doesn't.

so it's ok that if a special rule states an exception for that rule, then the special rule override the general rule....but it's not the case of Anrehir Curse

6) the BRB merely states that open ground doesn't have special rules. As long as another rule doesn't say anything to the contrary, open ground is indeed nothing other than physical support.

Now we stand before the question whether the wording in the curse of Anrahir for instance is sufficient to overwrite that section. To be honest I don't know anymore; contrary to the tomb king spell it just might not be specific enough.

You mean a poorly written section of the BRB that had a vague blanket statement thrown on it because they didn't realize there would be so many conflicts with it being labeled under the terrain section?

As I stated earlier, there are just too many conflicts no matter which way you read it to know exactly how open ground should be treated by RAW.  But reading into it a bit further (army books and faqs) i think the RAI is that it does nothing unless explicitly stated otherwise, which curse does not.