PDA

View Full Version : VC Question



Minus67
10-06-2008, 23:51
Maybe this has been asked before, if so i apologize:

Can a vampire with the Flying Horror Power, while riding a nightmare join a unit?

The FAQ on VC says you can ride a nightmare and still retain the Fly ability.
but it doesn't say it passes it onto the mount anything helpful like that.

The rule book states that characters on Flying Mounts cannot join a unit.

Can someone provide me a solid answer one way or another with a rule from somewhere?

Lord Aries
11-06-2008, 00:56
Yes, you can have a vamp with fly, ride a nightmare, and still join a unit. Its stupid, but legal.

Minus67
11-06-2008, 05:33
thanks for the reply. What do you base your answer on?

Jagosaja
11-06-2008, 06:28
Characters on flying mounts cannot join units. However, Nightmare is not a flying mount and is US2, so he can join. The fact that he can fly no matter what he rides does not change this.

TallChris
11-06-2008, 09:25
thanks for the reply. What do you base your answer on?

Its in the VC FAQ on the GW site

T10
11-06-2008, 16:13
Well, if a flying vampire mounted on a nightmare is a flying model, then it seems that the nightmare is in fact a "flying creature". Let's put it to the test.

Here's Barnaby von Carstein on his trusty Nightmare Blutwurst. He is moving from this location here by the family crypt to over there by the Well of Thousand Sorrows, right outside the charge arc of some Stirlander scum. That was a heft move of 19 inches. Let's watch the replay.

1) Did the model fly? Yes. The newly released FAQ resolved this issue nicely. Notice Baranby's strong thighs straining to keep Blutwurst aloft. That's some dedicated horseman I can tell you right now.

2) Did the rider fly? Yes. That's a good rhythm he's worked up there with his flapping arms. Must be tough holding on to that basket-hilt sabre, though.

3) Did the horse fly? Yes. Though it looked a bit tight there as he cleared Farmer Umlaut's roof. I'm sure the good farmer will need to replace some of those roof tiles.

So, what conclusion can we draw of this? Well, while Blutwurst isn't capable of flight on his own, he is most definitively a "flying creature" and therefore Barnaby is unable to join units.

-T10

Loopstah
11-06-2008, 16:15
So, what conclusion can we draw of this? Well, while Blutwurst isn't capable of flight on his own, he is most definitively a "flying creature" and therefore Barnaby is unable to join units.

-T10

It's a nice conclusion but the wrong one.

Flying creatures have the Fly rule. Nightmare's don't have the fly rule so are not flying creatures.

Is a Nightmare ridden by a vampire without flying horror able to fly? No, pretty obvious it isn't a flying creature.

Lord Aries
11-06-2008, 16:28
Wow, what a great use of "inference" to try and make the rules the way you want them T10. Unfortunately that is NEVER how you make a ruling, or figure out how rules work. There are 2 approaches. Is it specifically mentioned one way or another... and if it is not covered by a SPECIFIC RULE that does not have to be read into... then you use other rules to interpret it.


The mount model does not have the FLY special rule, therefore a character mounted on it, may join a unit. The only check required is:

1. Does the mount have the fly special rule? Yes/No


Warhammer Rules are not based on a logic based science, like physics or gravity...

Warhammer Rules are not based on common law/roman law where precedence is neccesary.

Warhammer Rules are not based on French Law system either... or any other legal system you can think of.

Warhammer Rules are based on either what is written RAW... or whatever temporary ruling lets you continue your game in the best fashion, and still be fun.


Unfortunately, as it is currently WRITTEN, you can indeed do this. Does it make sense or is it fair? NO... a lot of rules are crappy... but you can't use RAW when you feel like it, and use RAI when it best fits what you WANT to do.

Minus67
11-06-2008, 17:09
I can see you guys are having the same problem i am.

It is not addressed in the FAQ. Yes, i know he can fly.

Here are the two sides as i see it:

Yes he can: because he has the fly power, but the mount does not.

No he Cant: because they are treated as one model, and if fear and terror transfer over, why would the fly power not?

I can see it either way. Im going to ring the rules boyz and see what they say, though they are never reliable. Problem is i need an answer for a GT.

theunwantedbeing
11-06-2008, 17:23
Fear terror, stubborn...etc all transfer as they are stated to transfer in the rules.
This does not happen with fly so the vampire is not on a flying mount so may join units.

It is a frankly absurd ruling but then...that's what happens with the VC's, they get all sorts of abilities and rules other's shouldn't and wouldn't get.

It would have been very easy to add,
"models on foot only" to the flying horror vampire power...but then again, that would be too easy and make it less powerful.

Minus67
11-06-2008, 17:53
I understand how stupid this rule is, but i didnt write the FAQ.

I called the rules boys and they flatly said i couldnt becuase i was a flying model, but couldnt/wouldnt tell me where it said a flying model could not join a unit.

I emailed the GT people as no one seems to have anymore insight than i do.

T10
11-06-2008, 18:36
Flying creatures have the Fly rule. Nightmare's don't have the fly rule so are not flying creatures.




The mount model does not have the FLY special rule, therefore a character mounted on it, may join a unit. The only check required is:

1. Does the mount have the fly special rule? Yes/No


Nice rebuttal, but please notice that the restriction on characters joining units is: "Characters mounted on flying creatures cannot join units."

It is not: "Character mounted on creatures with the Fly special rule cannot join units."

So, one of us is "inferring" that a mount that is currently flying is a "flying creature" while two others are making stuff up.

-T10

Loopstah
11-06-2008, 19:24
Pg 68
"If a model is capable of flight it will have the special rule 'Fly' in its entry..."

A Nightmare does not have the Fly rule so is not capable of flight.

Something that is not capable of flight can not be a flying creature.

A Nightmare is not a flying creature.

It doesn't matter if the Nightmare is flying or not, it still isn't a flying creature.

Actually two of us are going by the Rules, which most people seem to use, while the other is trying to say a horse that can't fly is a flying creature.

Remember the rules state "mounted on a flying creature" not "mounted on a creature flying"

Lordmonkey
11-06-2008, 19:27
Pg 68
"If a model is capable of flight it will have the special rule 'Fly' in its entry..."

A Nightmare does not have the Fly rule so is not capable of flight.

All that glitters...

TheDarkDaff
11-06-2008, 19:49
Pg 68
"If a model is capable of flight it will have the special rule 'Fly' in its entry..."

A Nightmare does not have the Fly rule so is not capable of flight.

Something that is not capable of flight can not be a flying creature.

A Nightmare is not a flying creature.

So a Nightmare is not capable of flight which means it can't fly. So even though the Mounted Vamp can fly his steed cannot.

Loopstah
11-06-2008, 19:52
So a Nightmare is not capable of flight which means it can't fly. So even though the Mounted Vamp can fly his steed cannot.

Exactly a Nightmare cannot fly, except against all common sense the FAQ states that the model still retains the ability to fly, so both Steed and Vampire can fly as they state "model".

Stupid, yes, but that's the rules.

theunwantedbeing
11-06-2008, 19:53
A character on a dragon cannot fly...yet he does not prevent the dragon from flying.
Clearly it's an utterly stupid rule to allow a model to fly when part of it cannot.

TheDarkDaff
11-06-2008, 20:11
Exactly a Nightmare cannot fly, except against all common sense the FAQ states that the model still retains the ability to fly, so both Steed and Vampire can fly as they state "model".

Stupid, yes, but that's the rules.

The answer actually says that the Vampire may still fly but fails to mention if his nightmare can:confused:(it also makes the Vamp a guy so i guess those Female Vamp's can't use this FAQ). But if you want to say the model has the "fly" rule then that means the nightmare (which is part of the model) will have the "fly" rule.

So we have 2 options:
a) Only the Vamp has "fly" so the Nightmare can't fly
or
b) The Model (including the Nightmare) has "fly" which makes the nightmare a "flying creature"

Take you pick

theunwantedbeing
11-06-2008, 20:16
or c) the vamp can fly, meaning the model can...but as the mount isnt a flying creature so can still join units

Obviously c) is a bit silly but it's a perfectly reasonable thing to happen.
As this is exactly the same as what happens with a mount with the ability to fly and a flightless rider.

Malorian
11-06-2008, 20:17
This reminds me about the 40k thing where you could give a model a jumppack and a bike.

Seems silly (guy drives around, comes to a wall, and flies over bike in hand) but it was legal.

This seems to be the same. Silly but true.

T10
11-06-2008, 21:40
Pg 68
"If a model is capable of flight it will have the special rule 'Fly' in its entry..."

A Nightmare does not have the Fly rule so is not capable of flight.



That doesn't really help since there are no Nightmare models available. Sure, you can have a Vampire on a Nightmare which is the same thing if you ignore the Vampire. Let's not. The model isn't the same without him.

The ruling is that the model is capable of flight even if it is the rider that has the Fly special rule. If both the FAQ and the rule quoted above are to be held as true, then the "Vampire on Nightmare" model effectively has the Fly rule.

Which brings us back to the "flying creature" bit: As the model is capable of flight, then the mount is flying as well.

-T10

Loopstah
11-06-2008, 22:02
Which brings us back to the "flying creature" bit: As the model is capable of flight, then the mount is flying as well.

-T10

True, the Nightmare is flying but it isn't itself a flying creature.

If I put a horse on a plane does that make it a flying horse? It's flying isn't it?


The rules are quite specific "Characters mounted on flying creatures cannot join units." and not "Flying characters mounted on creatures cannot join units." or "Characters mounted on creatures cannot join units if the character or creature can fly.".

It's not the first silly and unclear ruling GW have made but going by the rules there's nothing to stop a Nightmare ridden by a Vampire with Flying Horror joining units.

Nurgling Chieftain
11-06-2008, 22:11
If I put a horse on a plane does that make it a flying horse?Um, yes, actually, it does. :confused:

The Clairvoyant
11-06-2008, 22:19
I find, the best way to deal with such problems is to not use contentious item combos
Don't give your vamp the flying ability and a nightmare.

Problem solved.

Loopstah
11-06-2008, 22:25
Um, yes, actually, it does. :confused:


No, it makes it a horse that is flying, not a flying horse. There's an important difference you would realise should you push the horse out the cargo hatch. :D


I find, the best way to deal with such problems is to not use contentious item combos
Don't give your vamp the flying ability and a nightmare.

Problem solved.


I agree, it's not the best use of points anyway.

Dark_Mage99
11-06-2008, 23:00
What's so stupid about the rule, even if it can fly?

Flying Horror is not wings. It just could be wings if you wanted it to be. It could also be dark magic, and a vampire could easily keep a horse aloft with dark magic if he could keep himself aloft with it.

Nurgling Chieftain
11-06-2008, 23:23
No, it makes it a horse that is flying, not a flying horse.Loopstah, seriously, those are literally equivalent phrases in the English language.

lparigi34
12-06-2008, 00:00
LOLZ!!!! Now GW really ***ewed on this one... they´ve finally outdone themselves really BIG... All your aguments are fine, but pointless even to consider in spite of the awesome ruling from our "game designers" ...

Minus67
12-06-2008, 06:18
Question sent to GW people:
I need a ruling that will affect my choice of GT army. I was told to
email this address if i could not find one listed under the grand
tournament website.

If i take a vampire with the Flying Horror Vampiric Power and put him
on a non-flyer mount ( Nightmare, as allowed by the FAQ) can he join a
unit(e.g dire wolves)?

The only rules i can find on the subject is:

From the Rulebook:
Pg. 69: Characters can never join units of flyers, even if they ride
flying mounts.
Pg 72.: Characters mounted on flying creatures cannot join units.

I cant find anything relavent prohibiting this character from joining
units other than those two rules. The first one doesnt apply as he
will not be joining a unit of flyers.

If the vampire can fly, does the nightmare also count as having fly
for this purpose?






Answer Recieved:
Hello,
From what we can tell, he can join the unit of Dire Wolves. There are
no rules we've found that disallow it.

Thanks!

John Spencer
Customer Service Specialist

Xirathnix
12-06-2008, 15:11
Minus67 you will find that no one follows any GW ruling unless its in an official FAQ, they are notoriously wrong or straight lies. Dont bother calling or writing them again. If its for a tourney then ask whoever is in charge of the tourney.

A flying horse and a horse that can fly can mean the same thing but in this case does not.

The mount is not conferred the flight ability although at some point in the game it will be a flying mount. If this mount were walking it would not be a flying mount where as the pegasus even on the ground is still a flying mount.

What you are hinting at is easily gotten around by saying my mount walked when it joined the unit:D

Personally I love this rule, Ive always wanted my own Venger. (Kudos to the old timers who get that)

T10
12-06-2008, 15:24
You want a character whose every plot is foiled by kids that don't even understand the basic rules of the game world?

-T10

Xirathnix
12-06-2008, 15:43
He would have gotten away with it had it not been for those pesky kids!

What I am referring to is something about Venger that applies to this thread.

Andrew Luke
12-06-2008, 16:16
The fact that this is a discussion just shows how sad the logic and general critical thinking skills are of an unfortunately large portion of warhammer players. Sure, its a stupid rule, but it IS the rule and it is plain as day.

iamaddj
12-06-2008, 16:30
While it seems, rather pointless, silly and overall a waste of points, it does seem to be a legal use of the Vampric Powers, the more fool you if you plan on using it.

kyinpie
13-06-2008, 11:20
the way i see it is, the creture isn't a flying mount! there for it can join any unit, other than a flying unit!
either way, if the GT alows it, why would u put him in a unit? if you put him with dire wolves you'd slow the unit down anyway, as you would have to use the ground movement!! reduceing the move ment to 8"(16") or if u have barding 7"(14") if you want a fast moving vampire to join the dire wolves use the talisman of lynci (i think thats the name of the item, i dont have my book to hand), then you wont be slowing the unit down! if its the save your worred about take the flayed hauberk aswell! these items should be about the same cost as the other two item, with the same effect, well 1" difference!!

ky

Badbones777
13-06-2008, 11:42
Of course, we should also probably consider that just because you *can* do something, doesnt mean you should, and you'd have to be an absolute **** to do something you KNOW is a blatant exploit:D. So theres a loophole in the rules, meh, rest easy, only a complete munchkin will abuse it. Like those guys in 2nd ed 40k who took a cyclone missile launcher AND an assault cannon on the SAME terminator!

Xirathnix
13-06-2008, 14:19
Except this isnt an exploit and is in a FAQ.

Is there a ruling that says you cant use your flight movement instead of ground when the unit cant fly? Never thought about doing that but didnt know it was prohibited.

DeathlessDraich
13-06-2008, 15:58
There is 1 important rule in the Flyers chapter which *prevents* a Flying Horror Vampire mounted on a Nightmare from flying.
Problem solved, I think.

Andrew Luke
13-06-2008, 16:01
So much fail.

WLBjork
13-06-2008, 18:52
Funny DD, the first thing I see allows the Flying Horror Vampire mounted on a Nightmare to fly (and nothing to prevent it).

The sentence is
If a model is capable of flight it will have the special rule 'Fly' in it's entry in the relevent army book.

I've added the emphasis.

GW have established that in the case of a character on a mount, it consists of only a single model.

Badbones777
14-06-2008, 01:41
Except this isnt an exploit

Fine, exploit, grey area, technicality-whatever. Thats just semantics. Its something most reasonable people know they shouldnt do.

Xirathnix
14-06-2008, 14:00
No, not an exploit, technicality, or a grey area despite what some would like you to believe. Most people wont do it cuz it sucks but not because its shady. I suggest you reread this thread and think on it so next time you can come up with an objection based on the rules as some others have.

EvC
14-06-2008, 14:08
Seems legal, but silly, to me. Bit of a technicality, but Xir is right, there's not much point to taking it.

Badbones777
14-06-2008, 18:27
Most people wont do it cuz it sucks but not because its shady.

Uhhhhh. So we agree then? Since, y'know, thats pretty much what I was saying.....:rolleyes:
So in essence you think exactly the same thing about the entire notion, you just disagree with the words I used to describe it? In that case I suggest you take the time to understand what people are saying. I never said it WAS against the rules-thats unarguable, as you have quite rightly argued the case that from a strict rules point of view its ok. (though GW HAVE said many times that if you have to justify something with "It doesnt say I cant!" then your probably vioating the spirit of the game) What CAN be classed as an opinion is that its an exploit.-Exploiting a flaw in a rule isn't the same as breaking it. Its just (as we both agree) one of those things that most people wouldnt do.

I merely wished to offer the opinion that its not something thats worth worrying about, as its dumb, and most people wont do it (which you agree with). Nevertheless I offer my apologies for incensing you to the point you felt it necessary to jump on me.:confused:

Xirathnix
14-06-2008, 19:56
Of course, we should also probably consider that just because you *can* do something, doesnt mean you should, and you'd have to be an absolute **** to do something you KNOW is a blatant exploit:D. So theres a loophole in the rules, meh, rest easy, only a complete munchkin will abuse it. Like those guys in 2nd ed 40k who took a cyclone missile launcher AND an assault cannon on the SAME terminator!


In this statement you not only call it a blatant exploit but you also flame (twice) anyone who would use it.

this is the definition of exploit from answers.com

1. To employ to the greatest possible advantage: exploit one's talents.
2. To make use of selfishly or unethically: a country that exploited peasant labor. See synonyms at manipulate.
3. To advertise; promote.

this rule is neither unethical or to the greatest possible advantage. Nor is it a loophole. Perhaps you used the wrong words then and I will leave it at that.

EvC
15-06-2008, 00:04
Of course it's a loophole. The rules are written make sure that a model cannot be mounted, able to fly, and in a unit at the same time, because it provides a hell of an advantage (Charging 20" + Dreadlance or similar, whilst having the protection on a unit so that you can position the model for a charge)... so you can exploit it a little, but not game-breaking.

Badbones777
15-06-2008, 02:40
Of course it's a loophole. The rules are written make sure that a model cannot be mounted, able to fly, and in a unit at the same time, because it provides a hell of an advantage (Charging 20" + Dreadlance or similar, whilst having the protection on a unit so that you can position the model for a charge)... so you can exploit it a little, but not game-breaking.

Precisely-its clearly an exploit in as much as it CAN be done, but was obviously never intended to be. As for my use of language, Xirathnix, Im sure we can agree to disagree, we are both reasonable people. I feel the terms I used were fully justified, and if I did "flame" anyone (not that I feel I did, and certainly no one specific) that too was justified-I honestly think you WOULD have to be a total **** to do that, as do most people I know, and its an opinion Im entitled to, as you are to yours, good sir. My apologies for any misunderstandings, in any case, and to everyone else since the point of the post has been somewhat deviated from, and thats in a large part my fault, but only because I feel my intent was misunderstood.:)

Andrew Luke
15-06-2008, 04:03
The failure. It is never-ending.

kylek2235
15-06-2008, 04:44
So much fail.

That is the most intelligent statement I've read in this entire thread

DarknessDawns
15-06-2008, 09:10
i have but one question, apart from the armour save bonus, why would you put a flying vampire on a nigtmare and want it to join units?

lparigi34
16-06-2008, 14:50
Protection from a fast moving unit.

Extra AS

Some weapons are allowed only if mounted (lances)

MalusCalibur
16-06-2008, 16:22
I think its irrelevant whether or not you can do this within the rules, since it's such an utterly ridiculous combination that no player who wants a reasonably realistic game should take it.
If you want a Vampire on a flying horse, take a Hellsteed. Thats what it's in the list for.


MalusCalibur

SuperBeast
17-06-2008, 23:37
The intent behind barring flyers from joining units was to prevent the luxury of 'point and click' charging with no drawbacks (e.g. being exposed, targettable, etc.)

The somewhat ludicrous ruling (although, the only way of getting a flying steed AND a mundane lance... cheers guys...) means that this is now possible.

However, as has been pointed out, there's no real advantage to it, other than the pursuit of said point'n'click goodness.

At which point, regardless of the semantics of the definitions, you are a nubbin.