PDA

View Full Version : Dreadlance



g0ddy
14-04-2008, 04:25
An Issue came up with regards to weapons that automatically hit. Specifically the Dreadlance in the "new" vampire counts book... perhaps this has been discussed before in regards to the bretonian lance of the same effect.

"Dreadlance : Lance. Attacks with the Dreadlance hit automatically."

So its a lance as detailed in the main rule book. That hits automatically

"Lances (Mounted Only)
*fluff*
Rules : +2 strength bonus when charging"

Now for context...

The rules for the Starlance in the High Elf Army Book specifically state that it is a lance with "the following exceptions" when charging you get +3 str instead of +2. Also, if youre mounted and charging the enemy cannot make armour saves against the lance. It also specifically states that it may not be purchsed by a non mounted model.

Back to the "Close Combat Weapons" section...

"Spears (Infantry)
*fluff*
Rules : Fight in two ranks."

"Spears (Mounted)
*fluff*
Rules : +1 strength bonus when charging"

From this we can assume that the in brackets (Infantry) and (Mounted) are being used to say that when this applies, so do these rules etc. (reading over the entire section for all the weapons - again this seems to be the case?)

In the magic items section (after magic is covered) it says the following...
"Magic Weapons :
A character that has a magic close combat weapon cannot use any other close combat weapons, although it can carry a shield as normal."

So.. what is the problem - the following situations can come up...

What happens in subsequent rounds (after the charge) or when you simply dont charge. Does the Dreadlance hit automatically?

What happens if the the character some how becomes dismounted, it would seem obvious that the lance no longer grants +2 strength when charging - but does it still not automatically hit when it attacks?

Discuss! and thanks for the help.

~zilla

Damocles8
14-04-2008, 04:42
well you can still fight with the lance....but the strength bonus only applies when you charge....

e.g. The Bretonian lance that gives Killing Blow, specifically says that KB is only given on the turn you charge

DarkSpawnie
14-04-2008, 04:42
I would say yes and no. got no rules to back it up but I'm sure other people will have their say.

ninja'd...:p

Jack of Blades
14-04-2008, 06:56
Yeah it autohits in every round of combat. As long as you're using it, which you must since it's a magic weapon. Couldn't you just have asked it instead of posting a novel? :/

Belerophon709
14-04-2008, 08:07
Yeah it autohits in every round of combat. As long as you're using it, which you must since it's a magic weapon. Couldn't you just have asked it instead of posting a novel? :/

Did it occur to you that he wanted to show that he had already contemplated the issue, prior to posing a question?

Anyways, it's one of those issues where the camps are divided. I have no difinitive answer, but to me it would seem odd that a 60 point magic weapon would only work on the charge, although it is a very powerful tool for the vampires, especially combined with Red Fury.

No rules to back it up really, as the rules concerning this issue are ambiguous at best.

splat
14-04-2008, 08:08
Yeah it autohits in every round of combat. As long as you're using it, which you must since it's a magic weapon. Couldn't you just have asked it instead of posting a novel? :/

however if you were on a monstrous mount, it was killed, and you are now on foot you can no longer use the dreadlance for auto hits since lances can only be used by mounted characters.

Griefbringer
14-04-2008, 08:31
Should we have a sticky for this item? The question seems to pop every 48 hours or so.

Jack of Blades
14-04-2008, 08:50
[QUOTE=Belerophon709;2522184]Did it occur to you that he wanted to show that he had already contemplated the issue, prior to posing a question?[QUOTE]

The question is quite simple, so no.

And splat, you answered your own question :)

Yehoshua
14-04-2008, 08:52
You can only assign a lance to a mounted character.

However, if a character with a magical lance becomes dismounted, they remain obligated to use the magical weapon (p. 121, "cannot use any other close combat weapons"), lose any bonuses obtained by virtue of it counting as a lance (p. 56, no entry for infantry wielding lances), and retain any other magical bonuses.

T10
14-04-2008, 09:17
however if you were on a monstrous mount, it was killed, and you are now on foot you can no longer use the dreadlance for auto hits since lances can only be used by mounted characters.

Wrong. A lance is a weapon that provides certain bonuses while mounted and charging. Should the owner find himself on foot he can still use the lance but gains no bonuses, meaning that he makes his attacks at his normal strength.

-T10

T10
14-04-2008, 09:19
You can only assign a lance to a mounted character.


In most cases the option of taking a lance (or indeed lance-like weapon) comes with that restriction, yes.

-T10

Belerophon709
14-04-2008, 09:29
In most cases the option of taking a lance (or indeed lance-like weapon) comes with that restriction, yes.

-T10

The Dreadlance has no such restriction though.

Yehoshua
14-04-2008, 09:50
Interesting point.

Gazak Blacktoof
14-04-2008, 10:29
Wrong. A lance is a weapon that provides certain bonuses while mounted and charging. Should the owner find himself on foot he can still use the lance but gains no bonuses, meaning that he makes his attacks at his normal strength.

-T10

Nope, there are no rules for non-mounted models using a lance.

If there are no rules for it you can't do it.

the_raptor
14-04-2008, 10:35
People really need to read the rules and not spout stuff based on their impressions or how things have traditionally worked.

the_raptor
14-04-2008, 10:42
Nope, there are no rules for non-mounted models using a lance.

If there are no rules for it you can't do it.

Characters with a magic weapon can not use normal close combat weapons. There is also no rule that restricts lances to only being used by mounted characters, lances just only have "mounted only" condition for their special rule.

Gazak Blacktoof
14-04-2008, 10:50
Mounted only is a condition of all of their rules.

Whilst I agree that ordinarily a character is forced to use a magic weapon if they have one it may occur that they cannot use one due to specific circumstances i.e. specific conditions have not been met. For example a character with a magic bow does not use one in a close combat- those are not conditions under which you can use a bow.

A model on foot can not use a lance- there are no rules for doing so, there are only rules for mounted models.

"LANCES (MOUNTED ONLY)" It says so in fairly large capitalised text.

theunwantedbeing
14-04-2008, 11:34
When the Vampire countes FAQ arrives we'll get an answer for this question.
(we wont of course but no point being pessimistic)

I personally belive it was the designers intent that the weapon not be used unless mounted.
As gazak stated nicely, magic bows dont have close combat rules...so you cant use them in close combat, despite them being magical weapons that you "must" use in combat.
A lance has no rules for being in combat while not mounted.

The weapon is blatently a lance so cant be used when not mounted.
It seems a reasonable conclusion given the rules.

Of course, VC players having spent so much on their now worthless magical lance may wish to disagree. Which is fair, nobody likes spending lots of points on an item which doesnt do anything.

Considering this weapon is almost never used without red fury on the same guy and tends to cause 6-8 wounds per turn, it's really quite fair that he would be unable to use the weapon when not mounted anymore.

siphon101
14-04-2008, 16:56
The rules state clearly that one must be mounted to take a lance. It also states that a mounted character gains +2 str for charging with a lance.

It says nothing about what happens if a mounted character finds himself unmounted. Moreoever it says nothing about a unmounted character using a lance. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that while you must be mounted to buy a lance, the rules do not in any way restrict you from not using the lance once you become unmounted

Gazak Blacktoof
14-04-2008, 17:15
Moreoever it says nothing about a unmounted character using a lance.

I believe that was my point. If, like spears, there were rules for infantry and mounted models, then fine. But there are no rules for infantry with a lance.

The +2 strength bonus for a lance is when charging. The entirety of the lance rules are for mounted models only.

slasher
14-04-2008, 17:27
The rules state clearly that one must be mounted to take a lance. It also states that a mounted character gains +2 str for charging with a lance.

It says nothing about what happens if a mounted character finds himself unmounted. Moreoever it says nothing about a unmounted character using a lance. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that while you must be mounted to buy a lance, the rules do not in any way restrict you from not using the lance once you become unmounted

Just like to point at the Lizardman FAQ about the Scar Vet on Carnasaur (cannt rember his name - in work), where it states that he still gets the +1S on the charge even on foot. - because of his magical spears rules NOT the normal rules of a spear if mounted.

Milney
14-04-2008, 17:37
Just like to point at the Lizardman FAQ about the Scar Vet on Carnasaur (cannt rember his name - in work), where it states that he still gets the +1S on the charge even on foot. - because of his magical spears rules NOT the normal rules of a spear if mounted.

What are the actual rules for the Spear though? Is it the Magic Item which gives the bearer +1Str when he charges, or does the item say "Spear (Mounted); *insert extra rules here*"?

Makes all the difference, and Dreadlance specifically states "Lance; *extra rules*"; indicating it follows all the rules for lances in addition to its magical effects.

athamas
14-04-2008, 17:48
yes, but the rules do not state it may only purchased by mounted characters, unlike the lance options in the HE book or the lance option for the wight lord

theunwantedbeing
14-04-2008, 18:00
Kroq'gar's spear doesnt state its a spear though...
Hence it gives the +1 even when on foot.

g0ddy
14-04-2008, 19:06
For the record, I did do a search for similar topics and nothing relevant came up (someone metnioned this comes up every 2 days or so...)

Putting all the silliness involved in attempting to wield a lance while on foot, while standing still - or simply the concept of 'stabbing' someone multiple times with a charging lance - aside.

I take some issue with the assumption that "Lance (Mounted Only)"
means that one cannot use or wield a lance when not mounted. Given how the rest of the weapons section is laid out it would instead seem to be an organizational 'device'. And its really quite meaningless to say "Lance (Infantry) No benefit (or as handweapon)". We know what it does when you charge when youre mounted. It is safe to assume when you dont charge and/or are not mounted it doesnt supply the stated benefit (+2 Strength).

(EDIT : The issue arose with a zombie dragon, first being in a 2nd round of combat and later dieing... Im not trying to advocate buying a vampire on foot giving him this lance and sending him on his merry way... :p)

~zilla

Gazak Blacktoof
14-04-2008, 19:14
Or indeed any benefit, beacuse you can't use it. There simply are no rules for infantry using a lance.

If the "mounted only" clause were mentioned within the +2 strength section then you would have a point. But it isn't, so you don't.

Lord Dan
14-04-2008, 19:23
If the situation was the same with a nonmagical lance, and the Lord (now on foot) had the option of choosing between his nonmagical lance or his hand weapon to pair with his shield, I don't think there's any doubt what the Lord would be armed with.

This just seems to be one of those issues where some people want to choose whatever is more beneficial in that particular situation. Just because there aren't rules saying you can't use a lance on foot doesn't mean you can.

LiMunPai
14-04-2008, 19:29
The rules for magical weapons with the lance special rule are distinctly ambiguous, since both sides have reasonable enough points that one distinct answer can not be given without errata. In those circumstances, you discuss it with your opponent beforehand, or if still a point of contention between the two opponents, roll a 4+, 1-3 player A gets his rule, 4-6 he doesn't. In the case of a tournament, the organizer decides. Use
The Most Important Rule! from BRB page 3.

g0ddy
14-04-2008, 19:46
Or indeed any benefit, beacuse you can't use it. There simply are no rules for infantry using a lance.

If the "mounted only" clause were mentioned within the +2 strength section then you would have a point. But it isn't, so you don't.

I simply disagreeing with that interpretation of those rules, it does not specifically state anywhere (to my knowledge) that you cannot "use" a lance while unmounted, you simply gain no benefit from doing so and thus there is little reason to invest points in it.

Im more interested with what happens when youre still mounted but didnt charge. I think it is an even more grey area - however the two problems are heavily intertwined.

Also, I am not one of those gamers - nor are any of the people that I regularly play against - that will not concede there point without a 5 hour argument during a game. The most important rule is... the most important rule and it regularly gets implimented around 'ere.

LiMunPai, has that been the conclusion around "the interwebs" as to how to solve the problem thus far?

~zilla

Gazak Blacktoof
14-04-2008, 20:15
Im more interested with what happens when youre still mounted but didnt charge. I think it is an even more grey area - however the two problems are heavily intertwined.

~zilla

You get all of the properties of a lance except ones that don't apply when charging i.e. its a one handed weapon.

If its a magical lance you also get any magical properties that don't only affect you whilst charging.

++++++

I wont bother re-stating my earlier reasoning again, you've clearly already made your mind up.

g0ddy
14-04-2008, 21:48
Gazak, in essence I guess yes, I have made up my mind as far as how I understand what "Lance (Mounted Only)" means.. I have however have not decided what the best solution is :D

Sumarizing most of the comments made in the thread... If the vampire wielding the lance charges (while mounted), he gains +2 str and hits automatically. If the vampire wielding the lance gets charged himself or is in a subsequent round of combat after he charged (and is still mounted) he still hits automatically, but doesnt gain the +2 str (Duh!). If he loses his mount for whatever reason, regardless of how fast his little legs can carry him, he may not use the lance - despite what the rules may or may not support.

Does this seem like a reasonable enough middle ground? a balanced between over all silliness and "the rules" ?

Unless of course something better has already been determined that no one has - as of yet brought up?

/wait for errata /shake fist @ gav

~ zilla

Belerophon709
14-04-2008, 22:08
Going by the logic that is presented by Gazak concerning using a lance while unmounted, I present to you:

The Halberd

If you look up the Halberd in the weapons section of the BRB, you will notice that it neither says (infantry) or (mounted) or (mounted only) behind it.

I guess that means that NO ONE can EVER use a Halberd, since it doesn't explicitly state that you can.

That's just non-sense.

The problem here is not whether or not you can use a lance while unmounted though; the problem is that there is a conflict of rules.

If we assume that a character is wielding a hand weapon and a magical lance that does absolutely nothing apart from being magical, and said character is dismounted, the rules start to conflict, at least if you go by the interpretation presented by Gazak:

Lance can be used when mounted only, but what about the rule telling us that a magical weapon MUST be used if the character has one? Clearly conflicting rules.

If we don't want the rules to conflict, and if we don't want to blatantly disregard one rule or the other, there is only one solution:

Lances can be bought by mounted characters only, but can (and must) still be used (albeit without +2S on the charge) by dismounted characters, should the situation arise.

If not, I'll claim that my opponent can't use Hand Weapons, Flails, Morning Stars, Halberds, Shortbows, Bows, Longbows, Crossbows, Repeater Crossbows, Slings, Javelins, Throwing Stars/Knives, Throwing Axes, Handguns, Clubs, Claws, Teeth, PMS, Flatulence or whatever else he might have in his arsenal that doesn't explicitly have a note attached saying that he can.

Fhoen
14-04-2008, 22:12
imo u just can't buy it whilst being on foot... (but that's just imo as it doesn't say u can/can't)
but if u loose ur mount , u still hit auto, cus u still fight with the long shiny stuff because it's a magical weapon !

Fhoen
14-04-2008, 22:14
Lances can be bought by mounted characters only, but can (and must) still be used (albeit without +2S on the charge) by dismounted characters, should the situation arise.

If not, I'll claim that my opponent can't use Hand Weapons, Flails, Morning Stars, Halberds, Shortbows, Bows, Longbows, Crossbows, Repeater Crossbows, Slings, Javelins, Throwing Stars/Knives, Throwing Axes, Handguns, Clubs, Claws, Teeth, PMS, Flatulence or whatever else he might have in his arsenal that doesn't explicitly have a note attached saying that he can.


i like that part :D
i'm gonna try this one vs my next opponent lol

logan054
14-04-2008, 22:43
I would have to say you cant use the lance if you lose your mount, it clearly indicates you have to mounted use it. Problem here is to many people try and read between the line, shame there arnt any lines to read between :rolleyes:

Gazak Blacktoof
14-04-2008, 23:20
I would have to say you cant use the lance if you lose your mount, it clearly indicates you have to mounted use it. Problem here is to many people try and read between the line, shame there arnt any lines to read between :rolleyes:


Aye, this is done as far as I'm concerned. This isn't a philosophical question so I'm not going to debate it continuously.

@Belerophon you'll just have to read my other replies to know what my response would be. I dealt with your counter on page 1 as far as I'm concerned.

logan054
15-04-2008, 07:49
Aye, this is done as far as I'm concerned. This isn't a philosophical question so I'm not going to debate it continuously.

@Belerophon you'll just have to read my other replies to know what my response would be. I dealt with your counter on page 1 as far as I'm concerned.

I think its pretty simple personally, it is the only weapon (off the top of my head) that states its only for cavalry, he rest either have alternate rules or nothing special when mounted, but hey, its exactly the same arguement about white blades before the change.

Dr. Acula
15-04-2008, 08:59
I guess that means that NO ONE can EVER use a Halberd, since it doesn't explicitly state that you can...

...If not, I'll claim that my opponent can't use Hand Weapons, Flails, Morning Stars, Halberds, Shortbows, Bows, Longbows, Crossbows, Repeater Crossbows, Slings, Javelins, Throwing Stars/Knives, Throwing Axes, Handguns, Clubs, Claws, Teeth, PMS, Flatulence or whatever else he might have in his arsenal that doesn't explicitly have a note attached saying that he can.

No - it simply means that there is only a single set of rules which do not vary with the mounted status of the character.

My interpretation of the rules is that lances can only be used when the character is mounted and as such the magical effects of the lance are removed.

][nquist0r
15-04-2008, 09:36
Uggg, is there anything worse than people that lawyer rediculous ideas simply for benifits that common sense should clearly negate? I think that the game designers should all be fired, and lawyers write the rulebooks in legalese. That way the majority of mouth breathers out there that have to be spoon fed reality can have total clairity when they buy "Mounted Only" items for their lil Killing Blood-gods. I thought Vampires have martial prowlness and take pride in their combat ability. I think any self respecting Vampire who charges into combat with a lance so long it's meant to be used off a mounts back, should try falling on it first. If he could jump that high... Rediculous.

Edit. I dont think there are actually rules on how high a vampire can jump, so I guess he clearly could impale himself. My bad.

Yehoshua
15-04-2008, 12:33
Try again, Inquisitor: p. 121, "cannot use any other close combat weapons."

Two absolute propositions in contradiction to each other do not clarity make.

][nquist0r
15-04-2008, 12:55
Hense the common sense. Go grab a lance and try running around with it for 30 seconds. And I'm not talking the wooden ones, but a good ole steel lance. Comparing them to spears is a apple and orange comparason. Spears can be wielded along the entire heft of the shaft. A lance must be held at the end and if you wish to be accurate at all braced onto a saddle... Add any clarity for you?

logan054
15-04-2008, 13:16
Try again, Inquisitor: p. 121, "cannot use any other close combat weapons."

Two absolute propositions in contradiction to each other do not clarity make.

You know sometimes it dosnt hurt to use a little common sense, i know it can be painful for some :rollseyes: its still a lance (as the item actually says), this requires you to be mounted, simple as.

Yehoshua
15-04-2008, 14:09
Yes of course, the vampire who lives next door has always had trouble wielding his magical lance on foot in our weekly medieval combat recreations. How could I have forgotten?

Mireadur
15-04-2008, 21:36
Guys, when choosing your characters in the army chart they only (and it is clearly specified there) let you purchase a lance in the event you mounted the character.
It always goes .. '' ..Can purchase a lance if the character is mounted...''

For what is worth (if any) in the 6th edit bretonnian book theres a hint about the solution for the issue: The 1st magic weapon entrance (a lance) just lets you purchasing it if you are mounted but the description of the item says... ''you get a +2S charge bonus (if mounted)'' thus enabling the possiblity for having it while unmounted....

Actually, after reading the HE book i noticed it doesnt make this distinction (though empire does), which just proves once more how sloppy and crappy is the job on 7th edit HE book.

Belerophon709
15-04-2008, 22:12
I think it's funny how someone in this argument says that something has to be explicitly stated in the description for it to be allowed, then turns and says the same doesn't apply when it's in regards to something else. To those who didn't get it, the point was to show that the line of reasoning was simply flawed, which it still is.

For the ones who preach the "common sense" approach, I think you have forgotten that this is WHFB - that means that common sense doesn't apply. There are tons of rules that, when compared to real life, make no sense at all.

I don't seem to be able to find the paragraph regarding lances that says "if a character sporting a lance is ever dismounted, he/she can't use his/her lance anymore".

Since none of you know what it's like to have just fallen off a zombie dragon, lance in hand, you can't really apply "common sense" here.

We have one clear-cut rule over which there can be no debate, and that is the "must always use magic weapons" rule.

*Hi5's Yehoshua*

logan054
15-04-2008, 22:33
I think you answer just shows you have no common sense whatso ever, while no we cannot imagine how it would be to have a dragon killed from under use we can however imagine what i would be like to have a horse killed from under us ;) maybe not the exact same thing but hey, close enough.

I have to say that common does apply when playing warhammer, its people that cant apply common sense to a game that create of the issues in the first place, well really its not even that, its more looking for a loop hole to get a advantage, its nothing to actually playing the game how it should be played. I have had the pleasure of playing such people and certainly wouldnt repeat the experience.

While we have this nive little clear cut rule of must always use a magic weapon i guess by that if a hero has a magic bow he must always use that in combat as its a magical weapon right? no, i think you will find again common sense prevails and tells us you must use a magical weapon when its a legit choice (ie a lance when your mounted, a magical bow when you shooting).

Malorian
15-04-2008, 22:41
If you have a magical bow then your can't have a magical weapon, and much like you can't take a magical weapon and a great weapon (to cover all situations), due to you always using the magical weapon, you also can't take a magical bow and a great weapon.

So actually you would be using the bow in combat. The fact that it acts the same as your handweapon simply allows you to use your imagination and pretend you are fighting with the handweapon.

the_raptor
15-04-2008, 22:46
Except there is no rule to say that lances are not legal when on foot. It is just that you don't get +2 S when charging with a lance on foot (ie the special rule doesn't apply unless you are mounted).

And sorry this has nothing to do with common sense. Magic isn't common sense, and neither are Vampires. You either accept that a foot Vampire can wield the dreadlance, or you refute it with real arguments. Saying "common sense" or "zomg rules lawyer" just says you don't have a rules argument against it.

You may as well claim people are rules layers for not taking 60% core, because it is common sense.

logan054
15-04-2008, 23:06
Except there is no rule to say that lances are not legal when on foot. It is just that you don't get +2 S when charging with a lance on foot (ie the special rule doesn't apply unless you are mounted).

Aside the fact it says mounted only in bold, infaact its the only close combat weapon that has the words only next to the rules, common sense, not at all ;)


And sorry this has nothing to do with common sense. Magic isn't common sense, and neither are Vampires. You either accept that a foot Vampire can wield the dreadlance, or you refute it with real arguments. Saying "common sense" or "zomg rules lawyer" just says you don't have a rules argument against it.

You may as well claim people are rules layers for not taking 60% core, because it is common sense.

funny i didnt say zomg rules lawyers (im 25, not a child) but anyways, now magic, vampires, not common sense, perhaps not, then again that if you want to go into names for the different phases, a vampire is still just a character in a game and he still followers the same rules as everything else in game. When you have a set of rules it isnt hard to use some common sense (unless it isnt to your advantage).

the_raptor
15-04-2008, 23:18
Aside the fact it says mounted only in bold, infaact its the only close combat weapon that has the words only next to the rules, common sense, not at all ;)

Which you imply means that it is a restriction on who can take those items, and I and others see it is a restriction on when the special rules apply. So no, not common sense at all.



funny i didnt say zomg rules lawyers (im 25, not a child) but anyways, now magic, vampires, not common sense, perhaps not, then again that if you want to go into names for the different phases, a vampire is still just a character in a game and he still followers the same rules as everything else in game. When you have a set of rules it isnt hard to use some common sense (unless it isnt to your advantage).

It isn't to my advantage at all. My only combat vamp is a strigoi, and I would feel worse about claiming his claws count as a magical lance, then I would about taking the dreadlance on foot (I'm also taking him as a hero so I can't even afford it). So again, either come up with a real rules argument or keep crying "play like I want you to play".

People (not addressed to logan) saying they don't like/wouldn't play people who used the dreadlance on foot, have no more impact on me then people saying they wouldn't play people who didn't use 60% core. Unless you can show it is cheating it is just your personal preference that you are dressing up as "common sense" to attempt to force on others.

Belerophon709
15-04-2008, 23:42
Aside the fact it says mounted only in bold, infaact its the only close combat weapon that has the words only next to the rules, common sense, not at all ;)



funny i didnt say zomg rules lawyers (im 25, not a child) but anyways, now magic, vampires, not common sense, perhaps not, then again that if you want to go into names for the different phases, a vampire is still just a character in a game and he still followers the same rules as everything else in game. When you have a set of rules it isnt hard to use some common sense (unless it isnt to your advantage).

Fact is, as raptor has already pointed out, that you are making assumptions as to what the intention behind "mounted only" is, and assumptions is all it ever will be as other people clearly have have other assumptions as to what it pertains. Problem for you is that these "other people" don't really use that as their selling argument, but point to a clear-cut rule saying that magical weapons must be used. No way around that. Those are the rules, however uncommon sense it might seem to you.

Oh and regarding you falling off a horse and all, are you a vampire? Did you fall off the horse while being a vampire and holding a magical lance?

Vampires do indeed follow the same rules as everything else in the game, but you still fail to point me to a rule that explicitly states that the lance can't be used while on foot if he was mounted when he bought the damn thing.

I offer you this: Most wizards can't wear armour, it's not readily an option for most wizards to buy armour. I assume that because of this they can't wear armour and cast spells, basing this on "common sense", derived from me playing RPG's in my youth. A Chaos Sorcerer, with Chaos Armour, is brought to the table by my opponent. Even though there is a clear-cut rule allowing him to cast spells while wearing said armour, I won't acknowledge it and claim that I'm right based on "common sense".

][nquist0r
16-04-2008, 01:41
and[/i] holding a magical lance?

Vampires do indeed follow the same rules as everything else in the game, but you still fail to point me to a rule that explicitly states that the lance can't be used while on foot if he was mounted when he bought the damn thing.

I offer you this: Most wizards can't wear armour, it's not readily an option for most wizards to buy armour. I assume that because of this they can't wear armour and cast spells, basing this on "common sense", derived from me playing RPG's in my youth. A Chaos Sorcerer, with Chaos Armour, is brought to the table by my opponent. Even though there is a clear-cut rule allowing him to cast spells while wearing said armour, I won't acknowledge it and claim that I'm right based on "common sense".

Ahh here is the desperate crux of your arguement. Vampires arent real so neither are lances in the traditional sense of the word. The chaos armor arguement is totally useless to you here, obviously comparing a chaos mage in armor to a guy running around using a lance is laughable, but I see your not the sense of humor type of guy. Its much easier for you to believe that he would keep the lance rather than it be removed as part of the mount for some reason. even though it clearly says mounted only. Well take your arguement to its logical solution. If he has a dragon that died and could fly, does it say the vampire looses that flight anywhere in the rulebook? I mean he bought a creature that allowed flight right? He payed the points to be able to fly, didnt he? He should STILL be able to fly even if the creature/item that allows that is no longer present. Pretty retarded, both scenarios (although one kiddied down enough for even you to see it has to be wrong.)

g0ddy
16-04-2008, 02:07
If you have a magical bow then your can't have a magical weapon, and much like you can't take a magical weapon and a great weapon (to cover all situations), due to you always using the magical weapon, you also can't take a magical bow and a great weapon.

So actually you would be using the bow in combat. The fact that it acts the same as your handweapon simply allows you to use your imagination and pretend you are fighting with the handweapon.


The rules as they are currently written specify magic close combat weapon.

A magic bow does not prevent you from having or using a greatweapon etc.

~ zilla

Belerophon709
16-04-2008, 07:48
[nquist0r;2527874']Ahh here is the desperate crux of your arguement. Vampires arent real so neither are lances in the traditional sense of the word. The chaos armor arguement is totally useless to you here, obviously comparing a chaos mage in armor to a guy running around using a lance is laughable, but I see your not the sense of humor type of guy. Its much easier for you to believe that he would keep the lance rather than it be removed as part of the mount for some reason. even though it clearly says mounted only. Well take your arguement to its logical solution. If he has a dragon that died and could fly, does it say the vampire looses that flight anywhere in the rulebook? I mean he bought a creature that allowed flight right? He payed the points to be able to fly, didnt he? He should STILL be able to fly even if the creature/item that allows that is no longer present. Pretty retarded, both scenarios (although one kiddied down enough for even you to see it has to be wrong.)

Actually, you're missing the point entirely.

The point of the whole thing was that you cannot disregard a clear-cut rule, just because the outcome of the rule doesn't make sense to you.
Especially not since the other "rule" that you choose to base your argument on, is merely an assumption on your part.

So start paying attention to the one rule we have to go by, that really is clear-cut:

You must use your magic weapon.

logan054
16-04-2008, 07:50
Fact is, as raptor has already pointed out, that you are making assumptions as to what the intention behind "mounted only" is, and assumptions is all it ever will be as other people clearly have have other assumptions as to what it pertains. Problem for you is that these "other people" don't really use that as their selling argument, but point to a clear-cut rule saying that magical weapons must be used. No way around that. Those are the rules, however uncommon sense it might seem to you.

Oh and regarding you falling off a horse and all, are you a vampire? Did you fall off the horse while being a vampire and holding a magical lance?

Vampires do indeed follow the same rules as everything else in the game, but you still fail to point me to a rule that explicitly states that the lance can't be used while on foot if he was mounted when he bought the damn thing.

I offer you this: Most wizards can't wear armour, it's not readily an option for most wizards to buy armour. I assume that because of this they can't wear armour and cast spells, basing this on "common sense", derived from me playing RPG's in my youth. A Chaos Sorcerer, with Chaos Armour, is brought to the table by my opponent. Even though there is a clear-cut rule allowing him to cast spells while wearing said armour, I won't acknowledge it and claim that I'm right based on "common sense".

I am making a assumption based on what is written, you are making based on what is not written, on little thing of wizards, actually in past editions you couldnt wear armour and caste spells however this has been changed.

You are welcome to not alolow wizards to caste spells in chaos armour, hell your welcome to play warhammer how like, of course the common sense lets you down again when you read chaos armour, its actually part of the wearers bode hence why it allowed you to caste magic ;)

So as witrh so many answers that say common sense has no place in warhammer, i think it because some people just have no common sense, its a fact of life, some people cant see the wood for the trees ;)

Belerophon709
16-04-2008, 07:56
Again, the basis of my argument is, unlike yours, not based on assumptions.

It is based on a clear-cut rule: You must use your magic weapon.

Again, you disregard it and I have to repeat myself.

Latro
16-04-2008, 08:14
I saw Tom Cruise (in "The last Samurai") whipping around a big lance-like weapon in circles while on foot. So there ... it makes sense in a fictional setting.

... did I just use Tom Cruise to make a point in the rules forum?


:eek:

DarkSpawnie
16-04-2008, 08:23
My answer to the original question is yes they can as ridiculous as it seems and as unrealistic the fact is that there are rules that state this. Common sense has little to do with the ways of how the "Warhammer" world runs when rules are in place which detail how almost everything works. Yeah sure you can put common sense (if its reasonable) in place when there isn't one and if both players agree on it.

Jerrus
16-04-2008, 08:28
Again, the basis of my argument is, unlike yours, not based on assumptions.

It is based on a clear-cut rule: You must use your magic weapon.

Again, you disregard it and I have to repeat myself.

Which conflicts with the rule that states that you can only use the lance while mounted.

Belerophon709
16-04-2008, 08:49
Which conflicts with the rule that states that you can only use the lance while mounted.

There is no such rule. Saying that there is such a rule is based on an assumption of what the meaning behind the paragraphed "mounted only" means.

As I have mentioned before, the assumption that this refers to "can only be bought when mounted" is also viable and just as logical, however irrelevant, since it remains an assumption.

Only clear-cut rule we have: Must use magic weapon.

][nquist0r
16-04-2008, 09:04
Maybe Mounted only means you can hop onto the back of the vampire and use your toes to play piggy wars with your opponents figs. I would tell you another way you could mount your vampire, but you must have the right definition already? If so share it with us. Seems how using even the loosest of logic must somehow connect the mounted only text with the weapon somehow...

*somewhere in the world of warhammer, an epic battle between dueling heroes takes place...*
Vampire Player: Oh yeah my guy has the dreadlance, so he autohits.
Empire Player: But you have to be mounted...
Vampire Player: Yeah, but when I gave the item to him he had a dragon mount, then I changed my mind and went for the awesome regenerating graveguard of doom.
Empire Player: But you have to be mounted...
Vampire Player: C'mon he HAS a dragon, here look at this other fig with him on it. He just decided to leave the dragon at the castle today. And shucks, now I'm stuck using the item cause its magic.
Empire Player: ... Your Retarded.
Vampire Player: ... But I still autohit right?

Abhorash
16-04-2008, 09:04
Again one of the things, that people are twisting to get advantage for them selfs.

Fhoen
16-04-2008, 10:20
I saw Tom Cruise (in "The last Samurai") whipping around a big lance-like weapon in circles while on foot. So there ... it makes sense in a fictional setting.

... did I just use Tom Cruise to make a point in the rules forum?


:eek:

OWYEAH U DID!:chrome:

anywho on topic , if the rules say u can't do it , then u can't !
if it's not in the rules it's acceptable that's how we mostly play ... as warhammer isn't about common sence it's a magical world (just like the magical world of internet) and magic just give people opportunities to fantasise...

SuperBeast
16-04-2008, 10:34
As has already been pointed out, the stipulations in parenthesis in the weapons section of the BRB cannot be limitations as they do not all specify states, so they (appear to) state when those rules apply.

As far as the "common sense" aspect is concerned;
Common sense applied to rules =/= common sense applied to the model the rules create.

A foot trooper with a lance doesn't make sense IRL.

However, the common sense interpretations of the rules is that this scenario is possible.

If the guy becomes unmounted he still gets his lance.
Buying a lance for a guy who is not mounted, however, is pure beard, even if it's not against the rules.

My personal opinion, BTW, is that the dreadlance is null and void once he loses his mount.

Jerrus
16-04-2008, 10:50
LANCES (MOUNTED ONLY)
A Lance is a heavier, longer version of the spear, used exclusivly by mounted warriors.

Rules: +2 str bonus when charging.

If we are to go by the assumption that "Mounted only" refers to "can only be bought when mounted", then you would get the str bonus when charging on foot (as it doesn't specificaly require a mount for the str bonus)

Using the same (broken) logic, pistols "can only be bought when shooting or in hand-to-hand"?

Or can you use Handguns in hand-to-hand, because doesn't specifically state that you can't?

Jack of Blades
16-04-2008, 10:53
Depends on if a lance is realistically useable or not when you're on foot. I don't think you should gain any bonuses from it, but you get any non-normal abilities it has. So I'd say that on foot, you do autohit with the Dreadlance but gain nothing else.

Then again, using a weapon like a lance when on foot makes no sense at all... hmmm... but, it's still a magic weapon... but it's also a lance... meh, you can't use it on foot I guess. The owner could put it in the ground until the battle is over or something.

Although I don't know if this should apply to Ethereals when carrying a magical lance. Even if lances aren't designed to be used on foot at all, using an almost unuseable weapon but having the chance to do damage is better than not affecting your enemy, right?

Because I for sure wouldn't just say:

''Oops, I'm dismounted and there's a bunch of things that can't be damaged except if I use my lance. Better pull out my great weapon!''

][nquist0r
16-04-2008, 11:09
If the guy becomes unmounted he still gets his lance.


What makes everyone drawn to this conclusion. The item is Mounted Only. Why do you all assume you still have it when you are unmounted? As I previously mentioned most lances are attached to the saddle.

Fhoen
16-04-2008, 11:37
lol, why should that be... sorry but what kind of BS is that u buy a lance on a mounted vamp...

the mount somehow dies ... imo he still fights with the magical weapon... it's not a mundane lance or so...

and this is not in my advantage either , just my point of vieuw

][nquist0r
16-04-2008, 12:01
Look, all I'm saying is that you have an item with a Requirement attached to it. Then you lose that requirement, and you all seem to be concluding that you get to use/keep the item regardless. All I'm saying is no requirement / No item. Period. Being mounted is a requirement of having the lance. That is the BS I'm refering to. Then gee, there is no problem left is there?

Seems how people are stuck on bad wizard comparasons here is one for you. Your wizard suffers a miscast and loses a wizard level. Opps he was only a level 1 to start with. Now he ceases to be a wizard. Hrmmm what to do with these "wizard only" items he has. Oh I know... USE THEM OF COURSE! Cause you know he has them and stuff... and well, he used to be a wizard! Right? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...
(If your nodding right now, you are soooo lame.)

Fhoen
16-04-2008, 12:26
i agree the mount part... but if ur mount gets slain my opponent could still use this dreadlance as it doesn't explicit says : requires mounted...

So i'll say it like this MY opponent... it's one of these interpretations u get with warhammer , one person says yes , one player says no...

same as the dragon armour goes for dragonprinces vs the screaming skull cata...

][nquist0r
16-04-2008, 12:36
So i'll say it like this MY opponent... it's one of these interpretations u get with warhammer , one person says yes , one player says no...

As long as you follow up with a lets die roll on it. Remember there are a lot of things that arent in the book. Someones idea of the Golden Rule could be dry humping your leg while its your turn. Just cause thats his intepretation of having fun, it doesnt make it right.


i agree the mount part... but if ur mount gets slain my opponent could still use this dreadlance as it doesn't explicit says : requires mounted...
Some people would argue that MOUNTED ONLY and "Requires Mounted" are in fact the same thing.

logan054
16-04-2008, 12:48
Again, the basis of my argument is, unlike yours, not based on assumptions.

It is based on a clear-cut rule: You must use your magic weapon.

Again, you disregard it and I have to repeat myself.

Yes i disgreard it as it based on one rule however the magic weapon still follows the rules for lances as it stated as a lance under the magic item rules. So yes while it is still a viable weapon then he will always have to use the magical lance however without a mount you cannot use a lance. As far as i can see if the weapon was intended to be used while on foot it would have seperate rules for this like the great weapon and spear and would not include the words in bold print mounted only. This is also no different than a magic bow which is ranged attacks only, you would not et magical attacks in closecombat nor would you get any of its rules.


i agree the mount part... but if ur mount gets slain my opponent could still use this dreadlance as it doesn't explicit says : requires mounted...


no but does the lance does and if you read the magic weapons it says it dosnt follow the normal rules for this weapon unless stated, saying its a lance dosnt tell you it follows the rules for lances then? so i guess it dosnt provide a strength bonus then :rolleyes:

][nquist0r
16-04-2008, 13:00
Ahh well, I've stated my arguement as well as I possibly could. I'll leave the torch for someone else to carry for a while...

Fhoen
16-04-2008, 13:02
so i guess it dosnt provide a strength bonus then :rolleyes:


i never said it would get the strenght bonus , that would be rediculous... (yes even i find that rediculous :P)
imo he still auto hits , but doesn't get extra bonusses :)

logan054
16-04-2008, 13:14
i never said it would get the strenght bonus , that would be rediculous... (yes even i find that rediculous :P)
imo he still auto hits , but doesn't get extra bonusses :)

sure he would get auto his if he was on a mount ;) as he dosnt just follow the rules of the lance that best suit him ;)

soots
16-04-2008, 14:27
I think the whole idea of 60 points is for it to hit in subsequent rounds as well (as a normal hand weapon/using the stub of the lance/no str bonus).

If i had a dagger in my pocket, or a magically glowing uber rare unique golden lance that makes me 10 times better at melee, id be finding an efficient way to wield it :p

This wouldnt be a problem if the vamps were +1ws like they should have been. WS8 + infinite hatred is better value.

logan054
16-04-2008, 14:42
I think the whole idea of 60 points is for it to hit in subsequent rounds as well (as a normal hand weapon/using the stub of the lance/no str bonus).

If i had a dagger in my pocket, or a magically glowing uber rare unique golden lance that makes me 10 times better at melee, id be finding an efficient way to wield it :p

This wouldnt be a problem if the vamps were +1ws like they should have been. WS8 + infinite hatred is better value.

I dont believe anyone is saying that you cant use a lance in later rounds of combat (im certainly not). The discussion is about if you can use after you mount is taken from you.

Good luck with using that lance however without a horse, im sure it would have been better if they had WS8, i guess its nice chaos actually has something they dont now ;)

Lijacote
16-04-2008, 15:39
i agree the mount part... but if ur mount gets slain my opponent could still use this dreadlance as it doesn't explicit says : requires mounted...

So i'll say it like this MY opponent... it's one of these interpretations u get with warhammer , one person says yes , one player says no...

same as the dragon armour goes for dragonprinces vs the screaming skull cata...

Really now. If your Bretonnian character loses his mount (I don't know if this is possible) does he still fight with the lance? No matter if it's magical or not, lances don't explicitly say that you need to be mounted to use it!11

Fhoen
16-04-2008, 16:17
i agree the mount part was more on the thing :
u give the lance to a vamp on a mount ... not to a vamp on foot... (altough u seem to be able to do it... cus i don't have the vamp book )

Lord Inquisitor
16-04-2008, 16:55
Okay, so flicking through this thread there are two issues:

1) If mounted, do you still get the benefits of the Dreadlance if not charging?
The answer seems to be a clear yes as far as I can see. There's nothing to suggest that it doesn't - you are still using that weapon (and obviously wouldn't be allowed to switch weapons to a Great Weapon, for example).

2) If a mounted character becomes dismounted, how does the lance work?
[i]Clearly, the character should not get the +2 bonus for charging. This is much more tricky: since lance is "mounted only". Personally I would say the character is still carrying the weapon. You can't use the special weapon rules on page 56 as the character is no longer "mounted only" - but the weapon is still there, it now just counts as a regular magic weapon. This cuts both ways, and the character would not be allowed to use handweapon & shield.

logan054
16-04-2008, 18:06
O
2) If a mounted character becomes dismounted, how does the lance work?This cuts both ways, and the character would not be allowed to use handweapon & shield.

again the hand weapon dosnt say (infantry only) it actually say (infantry), i would suggest you actually pick up the warhammer book, its the same for great weapons and spears. Lances are the only weapon that actually say they are mounted only. Also the handweapon makes refence to mounted models and how they recieve no such rules (well along those lines anyways), lances again make refenerence to being able to use them on foot.

Im sorry but unless you can find some rules for lances on infantry models i cant see any reason to believe that would usuable by infantry models, magical or not (do i need to mention the magical bow again). Honestly, i cant understand why so many people in warhammer have this whole belief "if dosnt say you cant do it then you can". Maybe thats the problem with the writers of the book, they rely on people to use their own common sense..

Belerophon709
16-04-2008, 19:27
[nquist0r;2528863']Look, all I'm saying is that you have an item with a Requirement attached to it. Then you lose that requirement, and you all seem to be concluding that you get to use/keep the item regardless. All I'm saying is no requirement / No item. Period. Being mounted is a requirement of having the lance. That is the BS I'm refering to. Then gee, there is no problem left is there?



See that's where you are completely and utterly wrong (along with a few other poeple). You all ASSUME that the "mounted only" is a requirement on the item for it to be used.

Wrong. It is a requirement for the special rule of the lance (+2 str on the charge) to be used. Nothing more.

If you have a non-magical lance and you get dismounted, you are allowed to switch to using your hand weapon instead (unless you're still in the same combat where you got dismounted, in which case you - BY RULE - have to continue fighting with the weapon you initially chose), but that is simply not the case with magical weapons. They HAVE to be used if you have them, and Dreadlance is a magical weapon and hence - BY RULE - must be used.

If everyone would just realize that the "(mounted only)" part equals an actual rule saying "if a model wielding a lance is dismounted, it can no longer use the lance, magical or not", this whole discussion would be over and done with, but instead, there are people wishing to read some misplaced "logic" or "common sense" into two words in a paragraph, instead of actually looking at the actual comprehensive rules set.

Some people claim that people who don't agree that "mounted only" means that a lance can't be used if the model is dismounted are trying to gain a benefit. I say hypocrites.

You're the ones trying to make a rule out of an assumption, while BLATANTLY disregarding a clear-cut rule.

Lord Inquisitor
16-04-2008, 19:38
i would suggest you actually pick up the warhammer book
I would suggest that you phrase things more respectfully if you would like a response.

Yes, I was reading the rulebook, and as Belerophon says, that section details what the special weapon rules are. You can still use a hand weapon and a shield when mounted, you just don't get the special weapon rule associated with it as that's for infantry. But you're still using the weapon and would get any magical bonuses associated with a magical hand weapon.

Put another way:

We agree that my interpretation of 1) is correct? That a mounted character can use the Dreadlance even when he is not charging - he just doesn't get the bonus that lances are eligible for when they charge.

So if you get the magical bonuses associated with a lance even when you are not eligible to gain the mundane bonuses in situation 1), I don't really see what's different with situation 2). You are simply being prevented from gaining the mundane bonuses as you ONLY get those bonuses when MOUNTED.

Belerophon709
16-04-2008, 19:43
Lord Inquisitor is completely and undeniably correct.

logan054
16-04-2008, 19:49
I would suggest that you phrase things more respectfully if you would like a response.

Yes, I was reading the rulebook, and as Belerophon says, that section details what the special weapon rules are. You can still use a hand weapon and a shield when mounted, you just don't get the special weapon rule associated with it as that's for infantry. But you're still using the weapon and would get any magical bonuses associated with a magical hand weapon.

Put another way:

We agree that my interpretation of 1) is correct? That a mounted character can use the Dreadlance even when he is not charging - he just doesn't get the bonus that lances are eligible for when they charge.

So if you get the magical bonuses associated with a lance even when you are not eligible to gain the mundane bonuses in situation 1), I don't really see what's different with situation 2). You are simply being prevented from gaining the mundane bonuses as you ONLY get those bonuses when MOUNTED.

well i see one difference, your on a mount, be it a dragon, a steed, whatever, the weapon can only be used by mounted characters, the fact its magical has nothing to do with sadly, if you read the whole of the magicak weapon rules it tells us that yes it ignore the mundane rules for the weapon unless it states otherwise. Rather than just saying it gets +2 strength on the charge it says its lance?


Lord Inquisitor is completely and undeniably correct.

erm, no

Lord Inquisitor
16-04-2008, 20:18
I'm merely deniably correct... ;)

Jerrus
16-04-2008, 22:40
LANCES (MOUNTED ONLY)
A Lance is a heavier, longer version of the spear, used exclusively by mounted warriors.

Rules: +2 Str bonus when charging.

It doesn't actually say that you don't get the str bonus when not mounted ;)

logan054
16-04-2008, 22:54
It doesn't actually say that you don't get the str bonus when not mounted ;)

lol, well damn then when you loss you mount you get +2 strength and the magical rules, hell why do you even need the mount, if only my chaos had some of these :wtf:

DarkSpawnie
16-04-2008, 23:28
It doesn't actually say that you don't get the str bonus when not mounted ;)

Seems like people are playing this as "If it doesn't say the opposite of what its saying in words then the opposite doesn't count".

It states in the weapon rules (MOUNTED ONLY) wtf, how do you not see that its saying you only gain the bonuses when mounted...

Belerophon709
16-04-2008, 23:38
Seems like people are playing this as "If it doesn't say the opposite of what its saying in words then the opposite doesn't count".

It states in the weapon rules (MOUNTED ONLY) wtf, how do you not see that its saying you only gain the bonuses when mounted...

They're grasping at straws. They won't face up to the fact that all they're doing is making assumptions that are clearly rebutted by the rules in place.

g0ddy
16-04-2008, 23:41
"Lance (Mounted Only)" can mean many things....

One of which is that you can only have/use this weapon if you are mounted... However as I and others contend that line of thinking doesn't necessarily agree with the rest of what is written in the "Close Combat Weapons" section.

So instead we base our opinions on other much more clearly written rules to draw our conclusions from... either way - for the time being ive decided how I will be using it (charge both benefits, non charge autohit only, no mount nothing) - I am still curious about what other people have to say on the subject.

~ zilla

EvC
16-04-2008, 23:53
Surprisingly complex issue. I'd have agreed at first that yes, a lance is "mounted only" and so is, of course, useless when wielded on foot. However it appears that this relates to the rules of how to apply the weapon when it is wielded by a mounted model; it is not saying that it is only able to be used by mounted models. So indeed, the lance can be used whilst on foot (without the +2S bonus for charging).

But that also means that there's nothing stopping a model on foot taking the Dreadlance to begin with; both interpretations are equally valid. That just tells me that the whole concept of the unmounted lance is stupid, is missing a parameter that should apply, and should be played according to the dreaded "common sense" interpretation. Which is, that the Dreadlance loses all abilities when the rider is unmounted. People are free to play the loophole way as well, but I can't imagine a game based on such a playing style would be all that fun, would it?

Of course I expect that if a Vampire Counts player with Dreadlance had his Lord unmounted after using the Dreadlance and then tried to claim a mundane hand weapon and shield bonus in combat, he'd get told by some that he's being a beardy rules-lawyering git ;)

Belerophon709
17-04-2008, 00:07
Finally a reasoning one can understand although I don't agree completely on some of the conclusions.

Thank you, EvC.

I would like to stress that I don't think one should be allowed to buy a lance for a model that starts out on foot. The model should, initially (i.e. at the beginning of the game) be mounted.

Now, your last paragraph pretty much sums up why I think a dismounted model should indeed be allowed the benefits of the Dreadlance. Since he has a magical weapon, he can't use hw/shield, simply because the rules governing magical weapons tells us that they MUST be used.

Also, please note that the special rules for the Dreadlance mention absolutely nothing about them only being applicable when mounted, as opposed to the general special rule for lances, which only apply when the model is mounted.

Personally, playing along with the "common sense" approach for a moment here, I could think of several uses in combat for a lance while on foot - setting it as a stake to receive a charge for example.

EvC
17-04-2008, 00:33
I don't particularly care for any "fluffy" common sense arguments one way or the other. Personally I'd imagine the Dreadlance shrinking down to be used like any other magical hand weapon, meaning it wouldn't matter if he's mounted or not (In case anyone thinks that's a crazy idea: it's magic, it can do anything!). When I talk about "common sense" (in speech marks), we all seem to agree that the model should be mounted to purchase the Dreadlance in the first place. But the rules are equivalent: just as there's nothing to stop a model from using the Dreadlance on foot, there's nothing to stop him purchasing it whilst on foot. But we know what makes sense, right? It's common sense ;)

Fhoen
17-04-2008, 00:40
Finally a reasoning one can understand although I don't agree completely on some of the conclusions.

Thank you, EvC.

I would like to stress that I don't think one should be allowed to buy a lance for a model that starts out on foot. The model should, initially (i.e. at the beginning of the game) be mounted.

Now, your last paragraph pretty much sums up why I think a dismounted model should indeed be allowed the benefits of the Dreadlance. Since he has a magical weapon, he can't use hw/shield, simply because the rules governing magical weapons tells us that they MUST be used.

Also, please note that the special rules for the Dreadlance mention absolutely nothing about them only being applicable when mounted, as opposed to the general special rule for lances, which only apply when the model is mounted.

Personally, playing along with the "common sense" approach for a moment here, I could think of several uses in combat for a lance while on foot - setting it as a stake to receive a charge for example.


well i tried to second that opinion... as i don't have the uber vocabulary for words (and lazy of course) i can't always say it like it thought it , but u just wrote everything i tried to write :D

Lord Inquisitor
17-04-2008, 00:42
A S3 knight on a M7 horse can use a lance, right? So why exactly can't a S5 vampire with M9 use a lance when not mounted. The only difference is that he doesn't have the weight behind the lance. Seems entirely reasonable that he can use the lance but not get the +2 strength bonus.

He'd just look a prat running around the battlefield with a lance...

][nquist0r
17-04-2008, 01:25
See that's where you are completely and utterly wrong (along with a few other poeple). You all ASSUME that the "mounted only" is a requirement on the item for it to be used.

Wrong. It is a requirement for the special rule of the lance (+2 str on the charge) to be used. Nothing more.


This is nothing but pure speculation on YOUR part as well! Using your logic an on foot vampire can purchase the dreadlance and just doesnt benifit from the charge bonus... This is so blatently wrong any sane person would see that their logic must be flawed somehow... You should be proud though, your dedicated defense of the rediculous will undoubtably lead some munchkin to have the same conversation that I mocked in my "epic encounter" post... I bet there is a footman conversion happening as we speak.


A S3 knight on a M7 horse can use a lance, right? So why exactly can't a S5 vampire with M9 use a lance when not mounted. The only difference is that he doesn't have the weight behind the lance. Seems entirely reasonable that he can use the lance but not get the +2 strength bonus.

He'd just look a prat running around the battlefield with a lance...

As I have mentioned 3 times now saddles are designed to secure the lance.


I saw Tom Cruise (in "The last Samurai") whipping around a big lance-like weapon in circles while on foot. So there ... it makes sense in a fictional setting.

... did I just use Tom Cruise to make a point in the rules forum?


:eek:

That wasnt a medeval lance. It was a spear.

the_raptor
17-04-2008, 02:03
[nquist0r;2531017']This is nothing but pure speculation on YOUR part as well! Using your logic an on foot vampire can purchase the dreadlance and just doesnt benifit from the charge bonus... This is so blatently wrong any sane person would see that their logic must be flawed somehow... You should be proud though, your dedicated defense of the rediculous will undoubtably lead some munchkin to have the same conversation that I mocked in my "epic encounter" post... I bet there is a footman conversion happening as we speak.

Stop using personal attacks and insults in a rules argument. And I will again state what I stated on page 3: Bring a rules argument or shut up. Crying "it doesn't make sense!!!1111eleventy!11" is not a rules argument. The rules are the rules, you can either play by them or agree to modify them with your opponent. But don't try to force people to agree with your interpretation because "it is illogical that a vampire could use a magical lance on foot!!1111".

Why don't you start crying about the people taking BSB's with great weapons. That is as "logical" ("that word you keep using, I don't think it means what you think it means") as a dreadlance on foot.

spartan116
17-04-2008, 02:08
Vampires are not humans. They are much more powerful. I can see a Vampire, or hell even a human in dire need, swinging a lance around on foot if it was the most powerful weapon he had. Does he get the +2S? Nope. I believe that bonus is implied through the horses momentum when hitting the ranks of the enemy. The game is fantasy based no? I would just ask myself, "Could that human carry that lance around and use it as his beatin' stick?" Then ask yourself again, only this time substituting the human for a Vampire. I know I could definitely see ol' Fang over there home-run smashing people with his Dreadlance. When I finally complete my VC army I will just explain the situation to my opponent and we will come to an agreement. The goal is ultimately have fun, no?

That's my 2 cents.

NINJA EDIT- The vampire would first have to be mounted to even purchase the lance. There should be no exception to this.

the_raptor
17-04-2008, 02:13
NINJA EDIT- The vampire would first have to be mounted to even purchase the lance. There should be no exception to this.

The problem is that there is no rule for it. Like a lot of things it got pushed off into army books and was neglected in the new VC book (like BSB's with GW's). The VC book really is endemic with neglected mentions of "assumed rules".

spartan116
17-04-2008, 02:18
The VC book really is endemic with neglected mentions of "assumed rules".

I would have to agree on that. :p

][nquist0r
17-04-2008, 02:44
Stop using personal attacks and insults in a rules argument. And I will again state what I stated on page 3: Bring a rules argument or shut up. Crying "it doesn't make sense!!!1111eleventy!11" is not a rules argument. The rules are the rules, you can either play by them or agree to modify them with your opponent. But don't try to force people to agree with your interpretation because "it is illogical that a vampire could use a magical lance on foot!!1111".

Why don't you start crying about the people taking BSB's with great weapons. That is as "logical" ("that word you keep using, I don't think it means what you think it means") as a dreadlance on foot.

Did you skip the whole, mounted only conversation, and my defense of what Mounted Only means?! As for your angry post and excessive use of 1's im a bit at a loss? Dont worry though I guess your dyslexic or something and that justifies your backward thinking. If your going to attack me in the future, please be a little more specific, as when I rant I clearly am.


The problem is that there is no rule for it. Like a lot of things it got pushed off into army books and was neglected in the new VC book (like BSB's with GW's). The VC book really is endemic with neglected mentions of "assumed rules".
MOUNTED ONLY It's right after the name of the magic item!

Jerrus
17-04-2008, 07:23
The main reason why I think lances aren't used at all when on foot is the differance between "Mounted only" (for lances) and "Mounted" (for spears and great weapons). There is a differance in the wording and it even states that lance are used EXCLUSIVELY by mounted warriors.

logan054
17-04-2008, 07:54
again to sum up what evc, its what i didnt say in the item (very common argument for rules abusers) still as i said before you would not have the lance listed as mounted only in the rules rather than army selection, while army selection does not prevent you from taking a lance (be it magical or mundane) the rules again state its monuted only.

Belerophon709
17-04-2008, 09:05
again to sum up what evc, its what i didnt say in the item (very common argument for rules abusers) still as i said before you would not have the lance listed as mounted only in the rules rather than army selection, while army selection does not prevent you from taking a lance (be it magical or mundane) the rules again state its monuted only.

Let me be clear on this: The rules DO NOT state that it can be used when mounted only. The mounted only is a paragraphed section referring to when the special rule of the lance comes into play.
Your "it doesn't say it can be used like that so it can't"-argument has been rebutted ages ago. It doesn't say that throwing axes can be used while mounted either, so should we disallow it for marauder horsemen to use while on horseback? No, I don't think so.

Again, the section on page 56 saying "(mounted only)" is a reference to the "special rules" of the lance.

Now, you can claim that this is an ASSUMPTION on my part. I'll give you that. But it's no more of an ASSUMPTION on my part than it is on yours, when you would have it mean something else.

You, however, insist, for 5 pages of discussion, to blatantly ignore the fact that we have clear rules in place, on which there can be no discussion of whether or not one thing or another is intended.

Those are the rules for magical weapons. And they clearly state that a magical weapon must be used.

EvC
17-04-2008, 09:44
But once again, if "mounted only" really does only apply to the special rules of the lance and is not a restriction on who can use it, then there's nothing to stop a model on foot purchasing and using the lance.

Belerophon709
17-04-2008, 10:02
But once again, if "mounted only" really does only apply to the special rules of the lance and is not a restriction on who can use it, then there's nothing to stop a model on foot purchasing and using the lance.

You are quite right, if that is the case, and that's not what I'm arguing.
I'm only arguing the fact that some people in the thread assume that the "(mounted only)" part is more conclusive than the rules for magical weapons. Mind you, I would never ever argue that a model on foot can buy the lance, but I also would never argue that a dismounted model couldn't use the magical lance he has.
I see the "(mounted only)" part as a restriction on the special rule of the lance, and as an indicator of who can and cannot buy the lance (my assumption - and it will never be more than an assumption, just as assuming the opposite will never be anything more either).

The rules for using magical weapons on the other hand, are crystal clear.

logan054
17-04-2008, 10:06
no your right, nothing EvC stops you from buying it, this dosnt mean you can use it, i dont believe the debate is about if you can buy the item with magic items or if a normal lance as equipment.

personally Belerophon709 any form of assumption on part has far more standing than a assumption based on what is not said, i have not ignored any rule, i have explain how i believe said rules are applied, i gave the example for magical bows, you are the one ignoring, you are the one ignoring rules, i have taken into account all rules that i feel would suit the situation rather than just one and saying this rule overrides all rules. As i said the magical weapon ignores thr rules for the weapon unless it says so, it says it a lance.

This is what i suggest, you play lances the way you like (however incorrect i feel they are, and i will play them how i like, at the end of the day, its going to make no bearing on my life how anyone here uses a lance.

Belerophon709
17-04-2008, 10:31
no your right, nothing EvC stops you from buying it, this dosnt mean you can use it, i dont believe the debate is about if you can buy the item with magic items or if a normal lance as equipment.

personally Belerophon709 any form of assumption on part has far more standing than a assumption based on what is not said, i have not ignored any rule, i have explain how i believe said rules are applied, i gave the example for magical bows, you are the one ignoring, you are the one ignoring rules, i have taken into account all rules that i feel would suit the situation rather than just one and saying this rule overrides all rules. As i said the magical weapon ignores thr rules for the weapon unless it says so, it says it a lance.

This is what i suggest, you play lances the way you like (however incorrect i feel they are, and i will play them how i like, at the end of the day, its going to make no bearing on my life how anyone here uses a lance.

Since the two "rules" that come into play here are the "(mounted only)" and the weapons concerning magical weapons, I don't see how I am ignoring anything. The whole bow-issue falls, by rule, under these rules and are covered as far as I'm concerned, the bow-issue is not what we are discussing here though - it is fundamentally different.

Now, as said, there are two "rules" in play. One rule is clear and very straightforward, and the other rule is contested as being a rule at all, since it is based on assumptions from both sides of the board.

If you would apply the "logic" and "common sense" that you yourself praise so highly, you would see that the only real rule we have to go on here is the one concerning magical weapons. The other rule, just doesn't exist... What was it you said about basing things on what is not said?

logan054
17-04-2008, 10:42
If you would apply the "logic" and "common sense" that you yourself praise so highly, you would see that the only real rule we have to go on here is the one concerning magical weapons. The other rule, just doesn't exist... What was it you said about basing things on what is not said?

I would question your logic/common sense then as i said, the magic item rule dictates that it will follow the rules for the mundane weapon (read the last line i believe), this line actually changes how the magical weapon works.

Example, sword of might, this would be a example, its a hand weapon however it dosnt provide the HW+SH bonus as it isnt a hand weapon anymore, its a magicak weapon (as it at no point mentions its a hand weapon, just weapon).

the dreadlance however mentions its a lance, if we read the magical weapon rules it tells us it only ignores the lance rules if it says nothing about being a lance, if your trying to say it ignored the part about being mounted then it clearly ignores the +2 strength when mounted. If you saying it does get +2 strength then it has to be used on horse back like the lance states.

Lord Inquisitor
17-04-2008, 23:01
I don't think anyone's suggesting that you should get the +2 bonus for a lance when not mounted.

As for saddles being designed to brace the lance, that's correct but not necessarily the case. Many lances weren't - but the point of the saddle brace was because of the enormous strength needed to carry the lance. And we're talking about superhumanly strong vampries here...

Further to this, early pikes were adapted from cavalry lances if I'm not wrong. In fact, thinking about it, it's probably more realistic for a vampire to fight with a lance on foot than from a horse after the first round of combat...

][nquist0r
17-04-2008, 23:32
I don't think anyone's suggesting that you should get the +2 bonus for a lance when not mounted.

As for saddles being designed to brace the lance, that's correct but not necessarily the case. Many lances weren't - but the point of the saddle brace was because of the enormous strength needed to carry the lance. And we're talking about superhumanly strong vampries here...

Further to this, early pikes were adapted from cavalry lances if I'm not wrong. In fact, thinking about it, it's probably more realistic for a vampire to fight with a lance on foot than from a horse after the first round of combat...

Actually The pike was inspired by William Wallace's amazement over his friends enormous shlong! Mel Gibson would NEVER lie to us!

Caboose123
17-04-2008, 23:56
Mel Gibson can't lie, he's Catholic :angel:

Well, my interpretation is that the dreadlance only works for the first round, then he must switch to something else. This is not based on RAW, just my humble opinion...

WLBjork
18-04-2008, 07:23
Good job it's your opinion Caboose, you seem to have completely ignored 2 rules there!

As for the "(Mounted Only)" text after "Lance" in the rulebook, I'm of the opinionm that this is because there are only mounted rules for it.

Great Weapons and Spears both have "(Infantry)" and "(Mounted)" sections.

Hand Weapons have a generic section and 2 "(Infantry)" sections.

When I saw the lance with the "(Mounted Only)" section, I didn't waste time looking for other rules, as there are none. On foot, it's a simple hand weapon.

VC Doke
18-04-2008, 14:05
If you have a magical bow then your can't have a magical weapon, and much like you can't take a magical weapon and a great weapon (to cover all situations), due to you always using the magical weapon, you also can't take a magical bow and a great weapon.

So actually you would be using the bow in combat. The fact that it acts the same as your handweapon simply allows you to use your imagination and pretend you are fighting with the handweapon.

The bow is magical, but can't be used in close combat.

This leads me to the bigger point. In the rule book, isn't there are side comment stating that a warrior will always chose the magic weapon, because he believes it is better?
I don't have the book in front of me, but at what point does a warrior choose to use a magic bow over a great weapon or otherwise? NEVER.
In addition, at what point does a vampire who's been knocked off of his mount use another close combat weapon over his Dreadlance, because the damn weapon rules were not written anticipating this debate? NEVER.

VC Doke
18-04-2008, 14:07
When I saw the lance with the "(Mounted Only)" section, I didn't waste time looking for other rules, as there are none. On foot, it's a simple hand weapon.

Thank you! An when a mounted unit of Bretts is charged, the Paladin in the unit still gets all the benefits from his magic lance EXCEPT the +2 str bonus.

logan054
18-04-2008, 15:14
Thank you! An when a mounted unit of Bretts is charged, the Paladin in the unit still gets all the benefits from his magic lance EXCEPT the +2 str bonus.

yeah thats totally right, still we are talking about if the guy lost his mount

Caboose123
18-04-2008, 16:18
Good job it's your opinion Caboose, you seem to have completely ignored 2 rules there!


Thank you for pointing out it was just my opinion :rolleyes:

I dont speak RAW, so thats all i got from your post :p
I dont speak stupid

To me, it seems silly to use a lance while not mounted or not charging...

sulla
18-04-2008, 21:05
To me, it seems silly to use a lance while not mounted or not charging...
Well it is a vampire we're talking about. As strong as a hydra or a young dragon! He would easily be strong enough to use even a heavy metal lance as a spear...

logan054
18-04-2008, 21:41
so vampire should be able to use magical lances on foot but humans, elves should not, right ;) that makes for great game balance.... beside you think the strength values are at all in scale? you think a chaos lord is really as tough as a giant? erm no... all to with the nerfing of big guys.

BloodiedSword
19-04-2008, 17:18
Actually, I'm reading my HE army book and I can't find anywhere saying that I can't take a lance for a character on foot.. there are no lance-specific restrictions at all.

Clearly if I did take one on foot I wouldn't get the Mounted Only charging bonus, but it's equally unclear whether it just counts as a HW or has no rules at all..

superknijn
19-04-2008, 17:55
It clearly isn't a Hand Weapon, so you can't use it to gain Hand Weapon specific bonuses like the +1 armour in combination with a shield when attacked from the front or a 2 Hand Weapons bonus. You know, like single-ranked spears.

BloodiedSword
19-04-2008, 19:24
Well it's not that clear (certainly for a mundane lance), as the rules state:


The term 'hand weapon' is used to describe any weapon held in one hand and not otherwise covered by the rules.

Now there are quite clearly no rules for Infantry using Lances, and so they do not have the "Requires Two Hands" special rule. It is therefore extremely easy to argue that my HE Noble on foot with a Lance can count it as a Hand Weapon because.. well, because the rules say he does frankly :p

So now I've made my case - you tell me, why shouldn't Infantry lances fall into the catch-all category that is 'Hand Weapon', should the situation ever arise?

Of course for HE Heroes on foot there's no actual reason to do this as a Lance costs exactly the same as a second Hand Weapon.

However, maybe this will give another perspective on what happens to the original Vampire with Dreadlance.

EDIT: Note that I'm not saying that HE Heroes on foot CAN take Lances - that depends entirely on how you want to argue the phrase "Mounted Only" in the BRB.

However, what I am arguing is that any model on foot that has a mundane Lance (for whatever reason) can count it as a Hand Weapon, and as all models are assumed to have Hand Weapons in addition to any other gear, this gives him at least the option to use 2HW on foot for +1 Attacks.

logan054
19-04-2008, 21:49
Actually, I'm reading my HE army book and I can't find anywhere saying that I can't take a lance for a character on foot.. there are no lance-specific restrictions at all.

Clearly if I did take one on foot I wouldn't get the Mounted Only charging bonus, but it's equally unclear whether it just counts as a HW or has no rules at all..

No you right, you can take a lance if you on foot, you just cant use it ;)

see very to important mounted only


Why shouldnt fall into the hand weapon,? because it lance, not a hand weapon, i would also argue when compared to great weapon or spears its worded in a different manor.

I would mounted only means just that, not on foot, you need a mount, be it a horse of a dragon to use it.

BloodiedSword
19-04-2008, 22:25
logan054, perhaps you didn't read the my post just above yours. I think if you read (or re-read) it you will find that there is actually a good case for a lance to be counted as a Hand Weapon when used by a model on foot (even if you don't personally agree with it).

Caboose123
19-04-2008, 23:13
That is actually a really good argument, however without having the HE book i cant really argue against it. (Not that i would, i dont speak stupid; see: Thread "Dreadlance")

logan054
19-04-2008, 23:22
The thing is a lance is covered by the rules ;) its covered asa weapon that is mounted models only, thats the whole problem i see, magical bows have no rules for them in combat, are they counted as hand weapons in combat? no, again i think its very clear the term mounted only means it can only be used while mounted.

The hand weapon is a good example, while it only has special rules while on foot this does not say infantry only it just says infantry, if indeed you are correct then wouldnt it say infantry only here if the idea of only is to imply that these rules can only used while on foot.

Caboose123
19-04-2008, 23:58
gratz on your thousandth post logan, anyway;

Is it not possible to coneive that a lance is just a type of hand weapon (having looked at the definition of hand weapon), with special rules for it that only work if your mounted. I think thats his point, and its a good 'un.

I still disagree with this though.

sulla
20-04-2008, 00:46
so vampire should be able to use magical lances on foot but humans, elves should not, right ;) that makes for great game balance.... beside you think the strength values are at all in scale? you think a chaos lord is really as tough as a giant? erm no... all to with the nerfing of big guys.

Well, vampire characters (with a GW) can already break chariots in one blow so they are pretty bloody strong. And scaling is pretty irrelevant at this level.

Note that I'm not arguing rules here, just providing a counterpoint to a previous poster theorising that it is it would be impossible to use a lance on foot. I highly doubt it would be for a supernatural creature like a vampire.

Gazak Blacktoof
20-04-2008, 00:53
Don't presume that vampires are the only ones to make use of lances, that mistake has been repeated enough times already.

][nquist0r
20-04-2008, 01:50
gratz on your thousandth post logan, anyway;
.

Any every one in this thread...

][nquist0r
20-04-2008, 01:52
Well, vampire characters (with a GW) can already break chariots in one blow so they are pretty bloody strong. And scaling is pretty irrelevant at this level.


True, but my giant can pick up and squish a vampire regardless of how strong he is in 1 attack... As irrelevant as that is. Just Imagine what he could do with a lance... Thats it I'm modelling my next giant holding a dead vampire who is still clutching his bloody dreadlance.

Zardoz
20-04-2008, 08:45
As said before, this appears to be a case of conflicting rules.
Lance (mounted only) meaning you can only use it on a mount vs magic weapons that must always be used according to the rule book.

I'm personally of the opinion that a lance could be used by a dismounted figure but would lose all of it's abilities and become a 'weapon' (not a hand weapon though for the +1st bonuse with shield however). But, that's my opinion.

As to the rules, irresistable force vs immovable object.
Roll off a d6 as stated until a FAQ comes out.

logan054
20-04-2008, 12:39
Well lances count as hand weapons on foot you say? so a lance on foot either gives +1 attack + can use the parry rule (remember all models are assumed to carry a hand weapon)? So a magical lance that is dismounted can also use the parry rule perhaps (as you said a lance becomes a hand weapon and teh magical lance will follow the hand weapon rules.

I would point out again i dont think a lance can be used, just by looking at the hand weapon rules we can see that it only has special rules for while on foot? how is this written in the book Infantry. So to me i think its very clear that while hand weapons, great weapons, spears, pistols.lance is the only weapon i can see that used the term only. While the hand weapon does say that this covers weapons that are not covered by the rules, i am the only person whos first thought is that lances are covered by the rules, they just have a requirement for use.

Magical weapons again rules vs mundane rules, well i think this has been talked to death however for Zardoz i will go into it again. You need to read the whole rule, it states while you have to use it, if still follows the rules for that weapon as long as it tells us to. So If the rule for a lance is that you must be mounted then how can you use it? its no different than using a magical bow in combat as a hand weapon in that respect.


Well, vampire characters (with a GW) can already break chariots in one blow so they are pretty bloody strong. And scaling is pretty irrelevant at this level.

Note that I'm not arguing rules here, just providing a counterpoint to a previous poster theorising that it is it would be impossible to use a lance on foot. I highly doubt it would be for a supernatural creature like a vampire.

Strength as little value in warhammer, i already posted this, you ******** quoted it:confused: As i said, the strength is heavily destorted in warhammer, so your reply to this "well a vampire can smash a chariot" yes he can... and, does that suggest the the strength chart isnt maybe a tad off? i mean a great weapon makes him more powerful than a giant..... Same as with a chaos lord....

Hmm, no, thats a very good representation:wtf:

DeathlessDraich
20-04-2008, 13:09
Apologies, I may be repeating some previous posts as I managed to read only a handful of posts here.


It clearly isn't a Hand Weapon, so you can't use it to gain Hand Weapon specific bonuses like the +1 armour in combination with a shield when attacked from the front or a 2 Hand Weapons bonus. You know, like single-ranked spears.

True.



However, what I am arguing is that any model on foot that has a mundane Lance (for whatever reason) can count it as a Hand Weapon, and as all models are assumed to have Hand Weapons in addition to any other gear, this gives him at least the option to use 2HW on foot for +1 Attacks.

A lance on foot confers +1A?? Not in the rules, I'm afraid.



So now I've made my case - you tell me, why shouldn't Infantry lances fall into the catch-all category that is 'Hand Weapon', should the situation ever arise?
.

1) Before the start of each combat round, the player has to declare his weapon choice. If he is on foot armed with a lance, great weapon, bow, flail and declares that he will be using hand weapon with or without a shield, then

a) He follows all the rules for hand weapons as laid out on pg 56, regardless of other weapons he is carrying
b) He can only use 2 HW if he has that weapon option

2) If the model is armed with a magic weapon, then he must use that magic weapon (Brets are an exception).

a) The rules for the magic weapon are specifically different.

b) They follow their own rules *only* and *ignore any rules for the mundane weapon of the same type* - pg 121
- probably one of the most ignored statements in the rules by the army book writers.
Dreadlance rules should *not* have used the word lance but should have stated - "+2S when charging and mounted."

c) However the rules for the magic item takes precedence in any contradictions - pg120

On the original question, the Dreadlance on foot will confer automatic hits *only*.

Gazak Blacktoof
20-04-2008, 13:21
b) They follow their own rules *only* and *ignore any rules for the mundane weapon of the same type* - pg 121
- probably one of the most ignored statements in the rules by the army book writers.
Dreadlance rules should *not* have used the word lance but should have stated - "+2S when charging and mounted."


That's two different items.

1) XXXX Mounted only

+2 strength when charging.

Hits automatically.


2) XXXX

+2 strength when mounted and charging.

Hits automatically.

Item 1 is almost identical to the dreadlance except that it wont count as a lance if an effect causes it to be treated a mundane item. A dreadlance would still count as a lance whilst item 1 would give no benefits.

Item 2 is what several people claim is the actual dreadlance rules, they are not identical.

DeathlessDraich
20-04-2008, 13:32
Not sure what you're trying to say.
'Hits automatically' appears as a separate rule from 'Lance' in the Dreadlance rules - Is this it? Then we have agreed on 1 issue.

"+2S when charging and mounted" is the only interpretation I can glean from the single word 'lance' used in the DL rules which is your (2)?

I fail to see how (1) could ever be used as an interpretation.

Some posts here have made various suggestions on how a lance on foot should be interpreted.
Until rules for lances on foot are published, these suggestions are mere conjecture or desired rules additions.

Gazak Blacktoof
20-04-2008, 13:44
What I am saying is that the dreadlance is a "lance", it says so in its rules.

Effectively the rules for the dreadlance read as follows.



Lance (mounted only)

+2 strength when charging.

hits automatically.

I agree that there are no rules for using the dreadlance on foot.

logan054
20-04-2008, 14:19
They follow their own rules *only* and *ignore any rules for the mundane weapon of the same type* - pg 121
- probably one of the most ignored statements in the rules by the army book writers.

Thats only part of the rule actually, as i said many times now, true magical weapons ignore the mundane rules unless it states otherwise.



Dreadlance rules should *not* have used the word lance but should have stated - "+2S when charging and mounted."

If it didnt not use word lance and was listed how you said chaos runeshield would be great against it, you vampire would suddenly not only lose auto hit but the +1 strength, this part of the reason is states its a lance. Are you sure it shouldnt have been written the way said.


c) However the rules for the magic item takes precedence in any contradictions - pg120

(I decide to edit this part :) ) Well if you want to exact about the contrafiction the contradiction is with the magic weapon rules in general as the magic item is tell you to
a) always use it
b) to follow the rules of the lance

so thus always using the item cannot take precedence as both are rules of magic weapons :) seeing as it dosnt state this as seperate rule, i cant see how you claim has more preference than another.

BloodiedSword
20-04-2008, 16:30
DeathlessDraich - I am unimpressed that you would try and refute my points without apparently reading my argument in full.

You have basically just stated "a lance on foot doesn't count as a hand weapon", from which all your other arguments follow, without backing up your initial assumption, and despite the fact that there is an argument that it does indeed count as a hand weapon.

If I have a Hero whom I have purchased a second hand weapon for and modelled as a Rolled Up Newspaper, he has a Rolled Up Newspaper and a Hand Weapon.

The Hand Weapon rules tell my opponent that his Rolled Up Newspaper (which is not covered by any other rules) is therefore treated as a Hand Weapon. My opponent therefore correctly realises that the Hero attacks as if armed with 2 HW because the rules say he is armed with 2HW.

Now if you take the view that a Lance used on foot is not covered by the rules (which seems like a reasonable interpretation if the amount of argument going on this thread is to go by), then there is absolutely no difference between the Lance and the Rolled Up Newspaper. They are both one handed weapons not otherwise covered by any special rules, so by the Hand Weapon entry they both count as single Hand Weapons. Thus any model with one counts as having 2HW.

Now declaring which HW he will be using as his weapon has nothing to do with this discussion as the Lance (having no rules by previous assumption) counts as a single Hand Weapon.

I agree that all of the above is mere conjecture as, as you say, there are no hard and fast rules to use here. However, this is a situation that could easily arise just from a normal Hero on a Monstrous Mount having it killed from under him, so the fact that it is conjecture should not prevent us from trying to come up with the most reasonable application of the rules should the situation arise.

logan054
20-04-2008, 16:54
DeathlessDraich - I am unimpressed that you would try and refute my points without apparently reading my argument in full.

You have basically just stated "a lance on foot doesn't count as a hand weapon", from which all your other arguments follow, without backing up your initial assumption, and despite the fact that there is an argument that it does indeed count as a hand weapon.

If I have a Hero whom I have purchased a second hand weapon for and modelled as a Rolled Up Newspaper, he has a Rolled Up Newspaper and a Hand Weapon.

The Hand Weapon rules tell my opponent that his Rolled Up Newspaper (which is not covered by any other rules) is therefore treated as a Hand Weapon. My opponent therefore correctly realises that the Hero attacks as if armed with 2 HW because the rules say he is armed with 2HW.

Now if you take the view that a Lance used on foot is not covered by the rules (which seems like a reasonable interpretation if the amount of argument going on this thread is to go by), then there is absolutely no difference between the Lance and the Rolled Up Newspaper. They are both one handed weapons not otherwise covered by any special rules, so by the Hand Weapon entry they both count as single Hand Weapons. Thus any model with one counts as having 2HW.

Now declaring which HW he will be using as his weapon has nothing to do with this discussion as the Lance (having no rules by previous assumption) counts as a single Hand Weapon.

I agree that all of the above is mere conjecture as, as you say, there are no hard and fast rules to use here. However, this is a situation that could easily arise just from a normal Hero on a Monstrous Mount having it killed from under him, so the fact that it is conjecture should not prevent us from trying to come up with the most reasonable application of the rules should the situation arise.

I would point out the flaw in the logic is pretty simple, if you take the only as meaning these rule only apply when wounted then surely the HW rules was also have the term only next to them. Strictly the situation is the same, the parry rule and the extra attack rule are in the same boat?

I think when looking at other weapons the term only becomes very clear, im sorry but i personally dont buy into a lance becoming a hand weapon as for starts does this not mean that when on foot a lace provide a extra +1 save or when you consider that all models are assumed to carry a hand weapon mean this can be combined with that to give you +1 attack (in later combats atleast).

Gazak Blacktoof
20-04-2008, 17:04
Now if you take the view that a Lance used on foot is not covered by the rules (which seems like a reasonable interpretation if the amount of argument going on this thread is to go by), then there is absolutely no difference between the Lance and the Rolled Up Newspaper.

Yes there is.

The rolled up newspaper (or club) counts as a hand weapon because there are no rules for clubs. Anything not defined as either a great weapon, lance, etc counts a hand weapon (unless its a magic weapon in which case it has its own properties which do not have to tie in with the properties of a mundane weapon unless noted in their rules).

Hand weapon is a catch-all term used to define any weapon not given its own set of rules. Lances have a "set" of rules- one of which is "mounted only". A lance or other weapon doesn't become a hand weapon for any reason other than an explicit effect from an additional spell, item, etc.

By your reasoning we could follow the same "logic" with a great weapon and arrive at the conclusion that it counts as a hand weapon if I use it at the same time as a shield.

Being mounted is just as important for the use of a lance as having to use two hands is for a great weapon.

EDIT: In reality all hand weapons are defined as hand weapons, you just happen to have modelled your hand weapon as a newspaper.

BloodiedSword
20-04-2008, 17:39
Gazak - hence why I said
if you take the view that a Lance used on foot is not covered by the rules

Obviously if you disagree with that then the rest of the argument is moot and there is nothing further to discuss.

It's this assumption that is the contentious part and you clearly disagree with it as you say that you think a Lance on foot is covered by the rules (i.e. that it is explicitly not allowed to be used).

As for the Great Weapon comment.. The GW has a rule explicitly stating that it cannot be used at the same time as another weapon or a shield, so for models with 2 hands this is not a problem.

However, I will give you this - by RAW I believe that a Chaos Lord with the "Extra Arm" Mutation trying to use both at the same time must count the GW as a Hand Weapon (so in effect, must instead fight with his single Hand Weapon and shield) making the upgrade a little pointless!

Gazak Blacktoof
20-04-2008, 17:46
Why would you think its not covered by the rules though?

Being prevented from a particular action is not the same as there are no rules to cover that action.

There are no rules to cover using a halberd at a range of 12" does that mean we should treat it like a bow?

sulla
20-04-2008, 18:35
Well lances count as hand weapons on foot you say?


h as little value in warhammer, i already posted this, you ******** quoted it:confused: As i said, the strength is heavily destorted in warhammer, so your reply to this "well a vampire can smash a chariot" yes he can... and, does that suggest the the strength chart isnt maybe a tad off? i mean a great weapon makes him more powerful than a giant..... Same as with a chaos lord....

Hmm, no, thats a very good representation:wtf:

Missing your medication today? You deliberately misquote the poster directly above you then throw a tantrum at me... Your argument is Vamps and chaos can smash chariots but giants can't; warhammer strength is broken... Sorry, I don't see that at all. All i see is that vamps and chaos can smash chariots and giants can't neccessarily. E=mc2. Yes, magic enhanced vampires and warp swollen chaos heroes can generate that much energy. Yes, giants are that slow.

intellectawe
20-04-2008, 20:11
Seems simple to me. Even though I can clearly see it from both sides, warhammer is a permissive rule set. You need to be given permission to be allowed to do something.

Lances are mounted only weapons. To say it can be used unmounted is equating me using my Great Weapons as hand weapons, my bows as zombie dragons, and my strength 4 magic missiles as auto killing missiles.

You don't need a rule 'not' saying you can't use a Lance on foot. You need a rule which DOES allow it to be used on foot. And there aren't any.

Lances clearly state to me in plain English, !!Mounted Only!!. It does not read to me, Mounted Only for the following rules, so if it is unmounted it is still usable. To me, mounted only means this weapon can be used MOUNTED ONLY period. Once you are unmounted, tough luck jack.

It comes down to a case of those idiots at GW who cannot write nor edit their own army books, so when crap like this falls through the cracks, we as players have to deal with their idiocy. And as such, don't let your Zombie Dragon die. GW can't write a rule set to save their lives, and now VC players are going to suffer for that.

logan054
20-04-2008, 20:21
Missing your medication today? You deliberately misquote the poster directly above you then throw a tantrum at me... Your argument is Vamps and chaos can smash chariots but giants can't; warhammer strength is broken... Sorry, I don't see that at all. All i see is that vamps and chaos can smash chariots and giants can't neccessarily. E=mc2. Yes, magic enhanced vampires and warp swollen chaos heroes can generate that much energy. Yes, giants are that slow.

Ah yes that it, you got it one :rolleyes: im actually not saying the warhammer strength system is broken at all, im saying it hardly can be taken as a true represntation of how strong a creature is. Bit of double standard mate, talk about misquoting :rolleyes:

I miss quoted teh poster above? what Gazak Blacktoof? i dont believe i even quoted him :wtf: maybe BloodiedSword? hmm, talk about needing medication :confused:

another thing, what does a giants seed have to do with the strength value not being a true representation of strength?

BloodiedSword
20-04-2008, 20:34
Why would you think its not covered by the rules though?

Being prevented from a particular action is not the same as there are no rules to cover that action.

There are no rules to cover using a halberd at a range of 12" does that mean we should treat it like a bow?

The difference here is that when I look at Missile Weapons in the Rulebook and look up "Short Bow", I don't see a paragraph saying:


"The term 'Short Bow' is used to describe any missile weapon not otherwise covered by the rules."

However, the Hand Weapon entry does include such a paragraph, so it's not as cut and dried as it might first appear. This issn't a case of "there are no rules so I'm going to do whatever the hell I like". This is a case of the rulebook actually telling you what to do in case none of the other special rules apply.

Again, caveat being that you could argue that the Lance entry means that they cannot be used by infantry at all, so the above doesn't apply.

][nquist0r
21-04-2008, 08:49
It comes down to a case of those idiots at GW who cannot write nor edit their own army books, so when crap like this falls through the cracks, we as players have to deal with their idiocy. And as such, don't let your Zombie Dragon die. GW can't write a rule set to save their lives, and now VC players are going to suffer for that.

LOL Amen. This is exactly that issue. The "Oh drat I let my zombie dragon get hit from behind with a chariot after I flailed around last round and didnt kill the unit with my friggen vampire cruise missile, but I should still get all my cool attacks, and not be penalized for my stupidity," arguement. So hrmmm lances are hand weapons right? I'll just wave it around with my shield autohitting and getting + 1 armor cause thats hardly a brutal rape of the weapon description and perfectly legal/logical solution for my poor retarded vampire's situation.

WLBjork
21-04-2008, 09:47
[nquist0r;2542596']So hrmmm lances are hand weapons right? I'll just wave it around with my shield autohitting and getting + 1 armor cause thats hardly a brutal rape of the weapon description and perfectly legal/logical solution for my poor retarded vampire's situation.

Not quite - as it's magical, and it doesn't have the words "hand weapon" in it's description, you don't get the extra +1 AS from using it with a shield (just like using the Biting Blade, for example).

BloodiedSword
21-04-2008, 09:58
By RAW, if your Vampire's mount gets killed then really at best you can argue that the Dreadlance becomes a magical hand weapon with no other special rules. At worst, it cannot be used in any way.

Personally I would let an opponent use it as you described but that would be a house rule. Though I have yet to meet the Lord with Dreadlance, Walking Death and Red Fury on Flying thing combo, so perhaps that will change my mind :p

DeathlessDraich
21-04-2008, 12:01
if your Vampire's mount gets killed then really at best you can argue that the Dreadlance becomes a magical hand weapon with no other special rules.

At best?:D

You have ignored the most important rule governing magic weapons - pg 121.
The Dreadlance on foot is still a magic weapon and *must* conform with magic weapons rules.
As WJBjork stated it can only be used as a handweapon if its rules states that it is a handweapon.

The point you're arguing and the question you've brought up, which I understand perfectly is - what happens when a *mundane* lance is used on foot.
This has been discussed many times and there are 2 interpretations which are determined by an interpretation of '(Mounted Only)' on pg 56 :

1) It cannot be used by any unmounted model - this interprets Mounted Only as 'Can only be used by Mounted models'

2) There are no bonuses if the user is dismounted - this interprets Mounted Only as 'Bonuses when used by Mounted models'


logan54:
I substituted 'lance' only with '+2S when mounted and charging' and not all the Dread lance rules
Chaos Runeshield: fails to be compatible with pg 121,
same problem with Pha's Illum. and to a lesser extent Vaul's Unmaking and Law of Gold.
Maybe the rule on pg 121 has to be changed instead because it certainly creates self contradictions when used with the above.

BloodiedSword
21-04-2008, 19:17
Oops - time for me to take advantage of my loosely worded earlier post - obviously I hadn't forgotten that magic weapons ignore any mundane rules ;)

So yeah, at best it counts as a Magic... er... "thing that allows your attacks to count as magic without conferring any other rules", and at worst it doesn't exist at all. How's that?

][nquist0r
11-05-2008, 19:27
Bump....


(Laughs Sinisterly)

GundamMecha
12-05-2008, 13:55
Heres an idea, the Vampire Lord falls off his steed, drops his lance and gets it accidently impaled into the side of said beastie...

Mr Vampire has two options

A) In a fit of embaressment and shame (whilst all the pretty girl Vampires laugh at him) turns into a bat in a puff of smoke and flys back to his castle to cry...

B) Attempts to pick up said lance and runs at the enemy with a huge Zombie Dragon Kebab...

jpf1982
12-05-2008, 18:10
Okay I don't now if anyone really read the back part of the rulebook because I feel I just found the most important sentence for this entire issue.

Magic Weapons : (Word for Word)
A character that has a magic close combat weapon cannot use any other close combat weapons although it can carry a shield as normal. No character can carry more than one magic weapon. Magic weapons always ignore any special rules that apply to an ordinary weapon of the same type unless otherwise specified in the description of the weapon.

The most important part here is this. It states close combat weapon which means that an elf with a magic bow will obviously not use it but revert to the hand weapon that all characters are assumed to have.

The 2nd part which pertains to this discussion is this. Magic weapons always ignore any special rules that apply to an ordinary weapon of the same type unless otherwise specified in the description of the weapon. So in short it eliminates the rule of needing to be mounted because it's description doesn't say "Mounted models only" like the Porko's Pigsticka for Orcs & Goblins does.

Ready for the new debate though? If it ignores all the regular rules then does it still get the +2 strength bonus for being a lance? I ask this because it doesn't state that it get's +2 strength in it's description while for instance Porko's Pigsticka says that it is not only a spear but also says that it confers a +1 strength bonus.

Maybe they just give you the type of weapon as reference for modeling/WYSIWYG purposes.

Ready, set, ARGUE!

Andrew Luke
12-05-2008, 19:46
You are all missing the key pointin the weapon entry, the semi-colon. If this were a colon, all you people saying its mounted only might have a point, but a semicolon specifically means that the adjoined statement is in addition and not dependant on the previous statement. Therefore anyone can take the Dreadlance, only mounted guys can ever get the +2S charging bonus, any attacks made auto-hit. And honestly I don't see the big deal, it is after all 60 points...

jpf1982
12-05-2008, 20:35
The big deal is when you combine it with a vampire who has red fury. While I'm not certain of the stat lies of these guys let's say it's a lort with 4 attacks. Oh look they all hit, now if he was on a mount which theres no reason for him not to be he wounds on 2s and lets face it that's probably 4 dead guys. Oh look now with red fury he gets 4 more attacks that again wound on 2's. Repeat cycle=broken combo. Basically the main complaint is that the combo is busted. I've never seen it played but I imagine I will when I attend the 2nd round of 'Ard Boyz in two weeks.

Evil-Lite
12-05-2008, 20:47
I do not think anybody is arguing that the dreadlance / red fury is not a hard combo; however, the main debate is if the dreadlance can be used while on foot (+2S is not being debated, I believe everybody agrees if on foot a Vampire will not get the +2S while charging).

As far the combo being busted; meh... If used properly it can be a difficult combo for others to compensate for (then again a lot of people have trouble with dragons and greater deamons as well); however, the combo can be countered depending on how the dreadlance is being used (On a Zombie Dragon / Hellsteed / Nightmare / Etc).

SuperBeast
12-05-2008, 21:28
Ready, set, ARGUE!

I would, except there is no argument... :D
The Dreadlance rule wording specifies it is a lance. Ergo, in addition to it having a magical property (autohit) it also follows all the rules for a mundane lance.

They don't need to retype the entire rules statement for a lance there, because they've already stated it is a lance as far as the rules are concerned.