PDA

View Full Version : dwarven shield bearers



Mireadur
21-08-2008, 20:25
Hi, im wondering if you consider a dwarf character fighting on a shield as mounted to the purpose of wielding a 2 handed weapon.

Eventhough the rules dont state the model is mounted they get a +2 save just as if riding a chariot or a barded horse.

What are your feelings about it? Thanks.

Malorian
21-08-2008, 20:38
It doesn't say he's mounted so he isn't.

Ethos
21-08-2008, 21:18
Negative on the mounted notion. I suppose the shield gives elevation - which for CC attacks, it would be harder to hit the guy since he's a bit taller.

Well, then again, he'd be the same height as a tall human. hah.

But yeah, not mounted. So great weapon's give +2 Strength. (I play dwarves, and I need my Strength 6 Lord :) )

theunwantedbeing
21-08-2008, 21:25
I say he's mounted as he isnt on foot.
He is "mounted on sheildbearer's" afterall.

T10
21-08-2008, 21:30
He isn't mounted, and he isn't on foot, yet for the purposes of the Great Weapon rules he must be one or the other. Take your pick.

-T10

Mireadur
21-08-2008, 21:57
I just consider a bit ''fishy'' he gets all the advantages from being mounted (extra attacks and armour) while not the penalty, and the shield option costs just like a barded horse for other army lords! But mainly if facing the issue from a realism perspective it'd be just strange he could wield the weapon as well as if he was on foot since the shield surely trembles a lot in the midst of the battle with the 2 guys being even able to ditch attacks.

I guess its just 1 more oversight/overpowering excess from Pete Haines.


EDIT2: Also i love the biased perspective people adopt when it attains their own army:


Negative on the mounted notion. I suppose the shield gives elevation - which for CC attacks, it would be harder to hit the guy since he's a bit taller.

Well, then again, he'd be the same height as a tall human. hah.

But yeah, not mounted. So great weapon's give +2 Strength. (I play dwarves, and I need my Strength 6 Lord )

Seriously we all need to look at matters from an impartial perspective. The fact we own certain army is totally situational as we could own them all (or several of them as is my case).

marv335
21-08-2008, 22:03
I'm with theunwantedbeing on this one. the army book clearly says mounted.
He has the benefits of being mounted, why shouldn't he have the penalties as well.
(BTW I have a dwarf army ant this is the way we've been playing it since the book came out)

Ethos
21-08-2008, 23:36
Mireadur - that was merely my sense of humor. Sorry for the confusion.

The only time "mounted" is used is when it talks about armour save, as the Lord is "mounted on the shield", and thus receives +2 to his armour save.

Where does it talk about 'being in a chariot is the same as being mounted?' I think it might help out on this issue.

*runs to check his BRB, and any FAQ he can think of*

Ethos
21-08-2008, 23:55
Actually, the BRB says that only cavalry (or some sort of steed), chariots, and ridden monsters are considered mounts.

Therefore, +2 Strength.

Plus, for characters, in their profile/points it will state options for mounts - chariots, horses, monsters, etc. For the Dwarf Lord, it says "may be carried on top of Shieldbearers". "Mounted is never used".

MrBigMr
22-08-2008, 02:02
I do agree that so far it seems in favour of the "not mounted, just carried" bit. Though it's not like I'm making a Dwarf army. *shifty eyes, kicks a BfSP box under the bed* If you want something bad, how about the fact that he's a wider target? Total of 4 20mm based models can kick his ass instead of the normal 3. Or 3 40mm base ones. I think 12 S4 AP hits from Fiends is worse than 8.

theunwantedbeing
22-08-2008, 02:40
Direwolf says he counts as on foot, as being on sheildbearer's isnt counted amongst the list of things that class as being mounted.

I'm fairly sure the only other occurance of such a thing is with a necromancer on a corpse cart, as the corpse cart is neither a chariot, steed or monster, so therefore he must not be mounted!(same logic as the dwarf on sheildbearer's afterall)

The only things that look similar to a dwarf on sheildbearer's are classed as being mounted.
Warhawk riders (standing on their warhawks as they fly)
Tzeentch character (mortal or daemon) on a disc of tzeentch

Classed as mounted seems much more fair. Nobody else get's the same benefits without any disadvantages.

Ethos
22-08-2008, 02:57
Well... can any of those carry a great weapon? Perhaps the Tzeentch caster...

In any rate, the entries for Warhawk Riders and Discs say that they have a mount (I think), or the Discs/Warhawks themselves are called 'mounts'.

Also, Shieldbearers are other dwarves, whereas a giant bird or flaming disc isn't exactly an elf or daemon, respectively (at least, not a daemon in the normal, 'daemon trooper' sense... ....whatever).


But yes, the Dwarves do have their special rule for everything. Sorry bout that.

WLBjork
22-08-2008, 09:45
Actually, the BRB says that only cavalry (or some sort of steed), chariots, and ridden monsters are considered mounts.

Therefore, +2 Strength.

Plus, for characters, in their profile/points it will state options for mounts - chariots, horses, monsters, etc. For the Dwarf Lord, it says "may be carried on top of Shieldbearers". "Mounted is never used".

Quite true.

If anybody wants to check their BRB, it's page 55, last paragraph.

One of the few times GW define a term that they use.

theunwantedbeing
22-08-2008, 10:47
If the dwarf is really "not mounted" then if ever caused to be subject to stupidity, will have to test once for the dwarf on top, and once again for the sheildbearers.

The sheild bearer's not being classed as a mount will not gain the advantage of being able to test with their rider (as they don't have one).
They will get to use his leadership of course (him being a character and most likely the general) although they WILL have to take a stupidity test seperately from him.

@Ethos.
Yes, they all clearly state mounted, that doesnt change the fact that they are physically doing the same thing yet dont gain the same bonus.
Regardless of whether they do or do not have access to a great weapon (it's not the only weapon with mounted specific rules).

Colonel Fitzgerald
22-08-2008, 11:18
It never does say 'Mounted' - it says 'Carried'. The sheildbearers give him some bonuses but they increase his base and make him a unit strength 3 move 3 model - that's not a mounted model or a anything. It specifically says that he's not larger than the other dwarves around him either, which he would surely be otherwise.

As a unit strength 3 model, is the Lord model now a Monster technically??

Also, as for having to test stupidity twice - nope, they count as one model for all purposes, so the shieldbearers die if the Lord does.

It seems most haven't read the dwarf entry the same as I haven't got the BRB with me lol!

Loopstah
22-08-2008, 11:20
If the dwarf is really "not mounted" then if ever caused to be subject to stupidity, will have to test once for the dwarf on top, and once again for the sheildbearers.

The sheild bearer's not being classed as a mount will not gain the advantage of being able to test with their rider (as they don't have one).
They will get to use his leadership of course (him being a character and most likely the general) although they WILL have to take a stupidity test seperately from him.


Not really seeing as the shieldbearers do not have a profile, and as far as the game mechanics are concerned are just an upgrade to the Lord rather than actual separate creatures like a horse or mount is.

So Shieldbearers wouldn't test for psychology effects as they are not a separate component, they are part of the Dwarf Lord.

A Dwarf Lord with Shieldbearers is one model with one statline and US 3, not a Dwarf Lord and two shieldbearers with separate stat lines.

Ethos
22-08-2008, 12:14
@ theunwantedbeing - well, right. Great weapons aren't a crucial point for whether a model is counted as being mounted or not. And yes, benefits and drawbacks.

But I'm with Loopstah on this one, believing that Shieldbearers are simply an upgrade to the normal Lord, as is an Oath Stone.

Mireadur
22-08-2008, 13:28
The problem, once again, is that the intention of Mr Haines was to give dwarven lords another over-benefit.

The discussion here it is not about what rules as written say, since this is pretty clear: Lots of benefits but not mounted thus +2 str. I think we are debating about the sense, logic and fairness of such ruling/oversight.

Ethos
22-08-2008, 14:01
quite right... quite right.


But yes, the Dwarves do have their special rule for everything. Sorry bout that.

yep. Dwarves are different. they're special.

fairness? well, I find that when I play as Dwarves I need all the benefits I can get with this very aggressive 7th edition and it's armies.

Gazak Blacktoof
22-08-2008, 14:57
I've fought against shield bearers many times and I can't recall how they affected the model on top with regards to hw and shield or great weapons.

If asked, I'd be forced to say he's "mounted" regardless of what the rules might say. He's not "on foot", anything else is mounted as far as I'm concerned. Rules examples aren't exhaustive so things fall through the cracks and its up to the players involved to come to an amicable solution.

If you looked for a dictionary definition of mounted I'm sure it would be broad enough to cover any situation in which a person (dwarf in this case) is "carried" or raised off the ground in some manner and using some other means of conveyance other than his own feet.

Ethos
22-08-2008, 15:08
Actually, BRB page 55 says:

"Sometimes the same weapon has two different entries, one referring to the use of that weapon made by infantry (and other models on foot) and the other referring to mounted models (cavalry and models riding monsters or chariots)."

He might just have been otherwise mounted if the BRB hadn't said anything on the matter.

But I agree with your reasoning Gazak.

Gazak Blacktoof
22-08-2008, 15:15
As I said I wouldn't consider any examples given as an exhaustive group, it causes too many problems when new models and rules are created. Its best to keep an unbiased viewpoint, use the squishy thing between your ears and talk it over with your opponent.

If you want something RAW, then the model isn't any more "on foot" than a model in a chariot, who is regarded as "mounted".

Ethos
22-08-2008, 15:27
It was also Direwolf'd / FAQ'd. And they said that he wasn't mounted. if you'd like I can give you the link.

But yes, always talk things over with your opponent, no matter how much more squishy yours is as compared to theirs.

Ethos
22-08-2008, 15:38
Here's the Direwolf, just in case.

http://www.geocities.com/mi_whplayers/7th_faqs/dwarfs_faq.txt

Ethos
22-08-2008, 15:41
Oh... perhaps, 'mounted' refers to the rider having to control his/her mount for the purposes of movement. But since Dwarves are simply carrying the Lord, there would be no need to control the mount - or in this case, other dwarves.

The dwarves beneath the Lord are trying not to drop him, whereas normally a character is trying not to fall off his/her 'mount'.

..I guess.

Gazak Blacktoof
22-08-2008, 16:32
I wouldn't consider anything in a direwolf FAQ to be any better than an agreement between the players concerned. They're just a set of house rules published on the web that people can pick up and use, or not use, as they see fit.

You can justify it any way you want if you're opting for counting the model as infantry- I think its bit screwy but we'll probably never meet so its not like its going to affect me. I'd say its probably much more difficult to stand on top of a shiny-shiny shield than sit on a saddle- I can imagine a shield covered in blood and gore getting quite difficult to stand on unless its got a "rune of self cleaning" or some other nonsense.

++++++

I'd stop double and triple posting Ethos before the inquisition get involved- use the "edit" function if you want to add another comment.

Ethos
22-08-2008, 16:39
Sorry bout the multi-posting. Forgot it might be frowned upon.

I suppose I'll just call GW for this one. as well.

... and will edit this post afterwards :D

Loopstah
22-08-2008, 17:40
The model "Dwarf Lord on Shieldbearers" is not mounted on anything, it is on foot.

There is no such thing as a "Dwarf Lord" mounted on "Shieldbearers", as there is no such thing as "Shieldbearers".

If the "Dwarf Lord on Shieldbearers" was on a horse then I would then admit they were mounted, but they aren't.

Ethos
22-08-2008, 18:13
Yeah, just got off the phone with GW.

Lord on Shieldbearers isn't considered to be on a mount, and so does not count as being mounted.

+2 Strength for a great weapon.

MrBigMr
22-08-2008, 20:04
If the "Dwarf Lord on Shieldbearers" was on a horse then I would then admit they were mounted, but they aren't.
If the dwarf lord on shieldbearers was on a horse then I would admit defeat as that would be pure win to see on the table.

Ethos
22-08-2008, 20:52
hahahahaha.



game over man. game. over.

Grimtuff
22-08-2008, 21:06
Yeah, just got off the phone with GW.

Lord on Shieldbearers isn't considered to be on a mount, and so does not count as being mounted.

+2 Strength for a great weapon.

GW's Troll's opinions are no more official than ours....

Mireadur
22-08-2008, 21:13
i was told once i could kill up to 47 models in a unit with the hydra sword and a bretonnian virtue which gave me something like +3 attacks back in the day.

TheWarSmith
22-08-2008, 23:50
I hate to admit it, but he's "not mounted". What I find MONSTROUSLY stupid is that if you remove the model down to 1 wound, it somehow is still swinging with full attacks and gets all the bonuses. Seriously, if the lord only has one wound left, then SURELY the guys carrying the shield should have died.

It should have been made a monstrous mount, but GW felt it would be a bit odd to have 2 dwarves counting as a "monstrous mount".

Anyway, this has been argued to DEATH previously(like 10+ pages worth).

Grimtuff
23-08-2008, 22:50
I hate to admit it, but he's "not mounted". What I find MONSTROUSLY stupid is that if you remove the model down to 1 wound, it somehow is still swinging with full attacks and gets all the bonuses. Seriously, if the lord only has one wound left, then SURELY the guys carrying the shield should have died.


That, and he somehow inexplicably gains immunity to Killing Blow. :rolleyes:

MrBigMr
24-08-2008, 02:21
That, and he somehow inexplicably gains immunity to Killing Blow. :rolleyes:
Well that's an easy one:

H/D
I
I X
I X

Easy swing for the neck.

D/H
X
X I
X I
X I

Not so easy to cut him head shorter no that he's taller than you. Can you explain to me how is it that a man on foot can be slain, but on horseback he cannot? Is he not as vulnerable as before, just mounted on a horse?

EvC
24-08-2008, 02:33
What do you mean? A man on a horse can be slain perfectly well, and is susceptible to a killing blow.

Ganymede
24-08-2008, 04:06
Actually, the BRB says that only cavalry (or some sort of steed), chariots, and ridden monsters are considered mounts.


Lizardmen FAQ

Q. Can a Slann use items that are for ‘models on foot only’?

A. No. He is not a model on foot!

There is clear precedent for non-standard mounted models within the rules. The Slann has no mount profile, is not described as mounted, and is in neither of the above categories. And yet, it still would not benefit from +2 strength from a greatweapon.

I'd say that this FAQ answer gives us enough guidance in this situation to acknowledge that a Dwarf on Shieldbearers could possibly count as mounted. One question remains: would it be wise?

Grimtuff
24-08-2008, 10:38
Not so easy to cut him head shorter no that he's taller than you. Can you explain to me how is it that a man on foot can be slain, but on horseback he cannot? Is he not as vulnerable as before, just mounted on a horse?

:eyebrows:

Models of US2 are not immune to KB.

Loopstah
24-08-2008, 11:20
Lizardmen FAQ

Q. Can a Slann use items that are for ‘models on foot only’?

A. No. He is not a model on foot!

There is clear precedent for non-standard mounted models within the rules. The Slann has no mount profile, is not described as mounted, and is in neither of the above categories. And yet, it still would not benefit from +2 strength from a greatweapon.

Not really a good example as the Slann is a floating model that sits on a flying base and such is clearly not on foot because he is floating. The Dwarf Lord on Shieldbearers is not on a flying base and is actually on foot because it contains feet touching the base.

Ethos
24-08-2008, 13:18
I'd still say that the Slaan has to control his flying base, whereas the Dwarf Lord doesn't control his Dwarves underneath him. They are concerned with holding him up, rather than the Lord being concerned with 'keeping the reins' on his Shieldbearers.

But I could be wrong.

Gazak Blacktoof
24-08-2008, 15:02
I think the slann example is perfectly applicable here- Nice catch Ganymede.


Not really a good example as the Slann is a floating model that sits on a flying base and such is clearly not on foot because he is floating. The Dwarf Lord on Shieldbearers is not on a flying base and is actually on foot because it contains feet touching the base.

Loopstah- It think you're being fairly silly, a mount will have its "feet" touching the base- does that make a cavalry-man an infantry model?

+++++++++

This is settled as far as I'm concerned.

Loopstah
24-08-2008, 15:58
Loopstah- It think you're being fairly silly, a mount will have its "feet" touching the base- does that make a cavalry-man an infantry model?


Of course the mount has it's feet touching the base, the rider doesn't have his feet touching the base so is not on foot.

For a Dwarf Lord on Shieldbearers the Dwarf Lord on Shieldbearers is touching the base with it's feet, therefore is not mounted.

This whole argument is silly anyway, there is no mount called "Shieldbearers" for a Dwarf Lord to be mounted on, so he cannot therefore be mounted.

Gazak Blacktoof
24-08-2008, 18:40
That wasn't the reasoning you gave previously which was- "feet touching the base."

EDIT: Oh and there isn't a mount called "palanquin" or equivalent for the slann either.

theunwantedbeing
24-08-2008, 18:45
This whole argument is silly anyway, there is no mount called "Shieldbearers" for a Dwarf Lord to be mounted on, so he cannot therefore be mounted.

He's not on foot either though.
He's on sheildbearers.

There are no rules for a great weapon being used while on sheildbearers.
Merely those for when on foot and when mounted.
The dwarf lord is neither, so the weapon has no rules for that situation so doesnt do anything.

It's rediculous to think that just because a model is not 1 thing, it is automatically the other.
eg.
This model isnt a dragon, therefore it must be an orc!

Danger Rat
24-08-2008, 22:50
The dwarf book came out in 6th edition when great weapons were still +2 strength if you were mounted so at the time it gave dwarfs no advantage. The lord also still has both of his hands on the great weapon whilst those on mounts have to hold onto the reins of there mount with 1 hand.

Grimtuff
24-08-2008, 23:02
The dwarf book came out in 6th edition when great weapons were still +2 strength if you were mounted so at the time it gave dwarfs no advantage. The lord also still has both of his hands on the great weapon whilst those on mounts have to hold onto the reins of there mount with 1 hand.

Yet even from 6th ed. there was the difference between HW+S bonus (or lack of if mounted). It is not just Great Weapons.

There is no excuse for this, GW never defined it and it is really a standout example of sloppy rules writing.

Bran Dawri
25-08-2008, 06:33
Classed as mounted seems much more fair. Nobody else get's the same benefits without any disadvantages.

Except that mounts tend to be a) loads cheaper, and b) give you a significant advantage in the movement phase.

Grimtuff
25-08-2008, 09:46
Except that mounts tend to be a) loads cheaper, and b) give you a significant advantage in the movement phase.

*Cough*Palanquin of Nurgle*Cough* ;)

Mireadur
25-08-2008, 18:03
Except that mounts tend to be a) loads cheaper, and b) give you a significant advantage in the movement phase.

I suggest you take a look at mounts cost for characters in other books. Not only it is not more expensive but no mount gives 2 ws5 st4 attacks and US3 instead 2.

The extra movement is totally irrelevant if you keep the character into an infantry unit (something done a lot just for the extra armour).

logan054
25-08-2008, 18:49
Yeah, just got off the phone with GW.

Lord on Shieldbearers isn't considered to be on a mount, and so does not count as being mounted.

+2 Strength for a great weapon.

The problem with calling GW staff is half of them dont even know the rules, hell just look at the army lists they put on the website, half illegal. Personally i would think its a mount, I also dont see how someone standing on a shield makes them immune to KB.

sulla
25-08-2008, 19:03
The dwarf book came out in 6th edition when great weapons were still +2 strength if you were mounted so at the time it gave dwarfs no advantage. The lord also still has both of his hands on the great weapon whilst those on mounts have to hold onto the reins of there mount with 1 hand.


...except when shooting their bows or other missile weapons...or halberds.

Kalec
25-08-2008, 23:49
I suggest you take a look at mounts cost for characters in other books. Not only it is not more expensive but no mount gives 2 ws5 st4 attacks and US3 instead 2.


The daemonic steed from the WOC get you by has 2 WS4 S5 magic attacks and gives M9. Quite comparable.

theunwantedbeing
26-08-2008, 00:08
How expensive are sheildbearers anyway?
A daemonic steed is 50pts, so for it to be properly comparable then the sheildbearer's would also have to be around 50points.

However, the daemonic steed requires a rather large 50mm x 50mm base, the sheildbearer's merely require a 40mm x 20mm base, so not quite so easily comparable as you may think.

So are sheildbearer's really around the 50pt mark?
Or are they more like the 20pts most lords pay for single wound steeds?

WLBjork
26-08-2008, 08:57
Closer to the latter than the former.

But bear in mind that unlike a Daemonic Steed, the movement of the character is not increased.

(Indeed, I understood that was the point of intoducing the Mounted rule for Great Weapons in the first place, M7+ S7+ characters were absolute death on those nice chariots folks took - so they stopped taking them).

Mireadur
26-08-2008, 17:54
Shieldbearers 24 points as stated some posts above exactly as a normal horse for a lord.

Malorian
26-08-2008, 18:29
Great... now you guys have convinced me to give my slann a great weapon...

Basically this boils down to the dwarf book coming out before the rule change. It can be argued either way and the best thing to do is to roll it off or don't give your dwarf lord a great weapon. (I prefer my str 6 D6 wounds handweapon anyway...)

Cambion Daystar
26-08-2008, 19:28
I don't think you can make a definitive conclusion from the current rules (dwarf book being a 6th edition book is the problem).
I personally think that he should get the +2S as there is nothing that stops him from properly swinging his weapon, unlike a lord on a horse/cold one/palanquin/dragon/manticore...

logan054
26-08-2008, 21:34
ok cool i'll go with Cambion, gona love all my strength 7 tzeentch heroes on disc's ;) maybe if i convert all my heroes standing on horses then they can have strength 7 as well because nothing would be stopping them :)

Grimtuff
26-08-2008, 21:40
Basically this boils down to the dwarf book coming out before the rule change. It can be argued either way and the best thing to do is to roll it off or don't give your dwarf lord a great weapon. (I prefer my str 6 D6 wounds handweapon anyway...)

Erm... ;)



Yet even from 6th ed. there was the difference between HW+S bonus (or lack of if mounted). It is not just Great Weapons.

There was a (different) problem in 6th edition too. Now the GW one is in addition to this, yes no-one *really* takes a HW+S on a Lord with SB's so it's something of a moot point, but the confusion is nothing new.

Mireadur
26-08-2008, 22:48
dwarf book is 7th edition, what are you talking about?

A chariot wouldnt stop the character either from using a 2hander properly (if the chariot would stop to fight that is)

Malorian
26-08-2008, 23:07
Is it?... hmmmm ok, my bad then...

Danger Rat
26-08-2008, 23:15
The current dwarf book was published in 2005, 7th edition was published in 2006.

Chariots count as mounted so you only get +1 strength seing as the character will need one hand for the reins.

Shieldbearers cost 25 points

Mireadur
27-08-2008, 00:06
umm 7th was published on september/october 2006 right? i thought O&G and dwarves appeared right after and 3rd book was the empire in the 1st quarter of 2007?

MrBigMr
27-08-2008, 00:17
At least my brand new copy has the year 2005 in it and talks of 4 model wide ranks (wasn't it so in 6th?).

Gazak Blacktoof
27-08-2008, 00:33
Yes, the last book for 6th I beleive, but deffinitely published whilst we were still using the 6th edition book.

ehlijen
27-08-2008, 03:20
The reason noone ever took a SB lords with HW+S is that the SB save bonus is disallowed from bringing the save below 1+. So whether the HW+S bonus applies or not does not actually make a difference (unless you manage to somehow destroy his armour but leave his shield intact).
So you'll either see SB+S+magic weapon or SB+rune of stone+no shield at all.

Cambion Daystar
27-08-2008, 09:20
ok cool i'll go with Cambion, gona love all my strength 7 tzeentch heroes on disc's ;) maybe if i convert all my heroes standing on horses then they can have strength 7 as well because nothing would be stopping them :)

Do you have any idea how awesome that would look. Now i'm forced to start a tzeentch army just for the herald on the disk with a huge weapon :)

Danger Rat
27-08-2008, 10:06
umm 7th was published on september/october 2006 right? i thought O&G and dwarves appeared right after and 3rd book was the empire in the 1st quarter of 2007?

No the dwarf book came out before xmas 2005 thats the year given at the front of the book for when it was published.

Mireadur
27-08-2008, 22:37
im really surprised about the dwarven book being so old. Had totally forgotten they got a reloaded in that edition.

Thinking about it... The prices on infantry and the crazyness of the anvil was truly hardcore back then!


Chariots count as mounted so you only get +1 strength seing as the character will need one hand for the reins.

Actually the characters arent the ones piloting the chariots but the remaining chariot driver you keep when choose chariots as an option for a character.

MrBigMr
27-08-2008, 23:01
Funny that no matter what, a model can still operate many other things two handed on horse back (guns, bows, other two handed weapons like spears and lances, though I guess they hold those with one hand). Maybe it's not so much about ability to use it two handed, but something else. In ancient Egypt charioters tied the reins around their hip and steered the horses that way while operating bows at the same time. It was usually done just for show, sort of "look, mom, no hands."

In 40K IG codex says Rough Riders can use both hands in close combat because the horse can steer itself, rather than the user having to control it themselves. But that was two editions back. Now anyone gets bonuses while mounted, be it horse or bike.


But this talk has at least made me switch the armament of my lord. Not that I think shieldbearer makes him mounted, but because I want to avoid getting into this type of an argument during play.

Ganymede
28-08-2008, 03:26
I hear ya. A friend and I kept getting into disputes over how to adjucate the effects of a certain Item. Eventually, I stopped taking the item. It wasn't because I thought he was right; I merely wanted to avoid the constant bickering.

That being said, I don't think any of the arguments in this thread have evolved at all in about 30 postings.

MrBigMr
28-08-2008, 03:41
Yeah, besides, I'd rather have the magic weapon with Rune of Cleaving. So it costs more, but at least it's just one point less in strength, magical and doesn't (always) strike last.

And I know about argument. I once sat for 6 hours and looked at two guys playing a game where they pretty much wanted to check every move from the rulebook. Why did I sit and look? Because the place where we were playing is a gaming club I happen to pull for our local association and I had to be there to open and close it. And as one of the players was my ride home.

So I'll rather avoid arguing than in the end lose my temper and crack a chair over their head.

Danger Rat
28-08-2008, 11:35
Actually the characters arent the ones piloting the chariots but the remaining chariot driver you keep when choose chariots as an option for a character.

Must depend on the army list then because tomb king characters replace both crew.

Mireadur
28-08-2008, 18:18
Must depend on the army list then because tomb king characters replace both crew.

Yup very truth... So all armies except tomb kings get +2 Str with 2handers when riding a chariot :evilgrin:

In reality the chariots ridden by the heroes in the ancient age of bronze were for a single passenger.. At least the ones seen in Hommer (sp?) tales.

Condottiere
28-08-2008, 19:06
Chariots come in all sizes, I suppose light ones can have one or two crew members, but shooting a bow or holding a weapon two handed, while simultaneously guiding a chariot is quite an accomplishment.

Yenlim
28-08-2008, 19:07
I love the idiots trying to argue that he count's as mounted for the purposes of a Great Weapon.

Not only do they make the erroneous assumption of claiming "He gets all of the advantages of being mounted without the disadvantages" - really? So that Dwarf Lord has the ability to escape danger? Or tie up a small unit in combat? Or quickly charge out to kill an opposing montrous character? Great! - or that's he's "immune to Killing Blow" - Uh, really? He's on a 40mmx20mm base, that's not classed as anything higher than US2 so he can still be KB'd.

And then to top it off there's a list of what's classified as "Mounted" for the purposes of Great Weapons in the BRB and you just dismiss it as "Oh it's an incomplete list". So... what's left off it? Oh yes, the Corpse Cart... which can be ridden by... a Necromancer... who can have... no Great Weapons...

'kay...

So, there's a list of stuff that is classed as mounted and this is still bveing debated?

Muppets -.-

(Oh and before you start assuming that I'm "pro" Dwarf, my armies are Dark Elves, Empire and Hordes of Chaos)

The simple fact is that the only time there could really be any complaint is is he was on a shield bearer with Master Rune of Kragg the Grim (I think) so he can actually use it as a great weapon, seeing as runic weapons lose thier original rules. And there are other far more useful Master Weapon Runes out there, than to keep the "+2 Strength, 2 Hands and Strikes Last" rules....

Loopstah
28-08-2008, 19:12
- or that's he's "immune to Killing Blow" - Uh, really? He's on a 40mmx20mm base, that's not classed as anything higher than US2 so he can still be KB'd.


A Dwarf Lord on Shieldbearers is US 3 as per the rules for Shieldbearers in the Dwarf Army Book.

Gazak Blacktoof
28-08-2008, 19:13
I love the idiots trying to argue that he count's as mounted for the purposes of a Great Weapon.


Don't call people idiots (even if you do have amorous feelings for them) unless you want your posts reported and a kick up the ass from the Inquisition.

You don't agree with other people that's fine, but don't be abusive.

Danger Rat
28-08-2008, 21:27
A Dwarf Lord on Shieldbearers is US 3 as per the rules for Shieldbearers in the Dwarf Army Book.

Correct see page 29 of the dwarf army book Yenlim and calling other people idiots or muppets will only get you reported

Gekiganger
28-08-2008, 21:28
Classed as mounted seems much more fair. Nobody else get's the same benefits without any disadvantages.

Doesn't every army have something unique about them, this is just one of those things, no?

I don't consider a dwarf on shield bearers to be mounted, nowhere does it use the word 'mounted' in the description and mounts tend to have a seperate statline, iirc the SB don't.

People pointing out physics and logic, thats more fitting for a background thread than a rules thread. They rarely mesh together perfectly. If you want to rationalise it then dwarves are stout fellows that won't sway much, imagine the disgrace if you made your charge fall off his shield! That would be cause for joining the slayer cult!

Grimtuff
28-08-2008, 22:25
I don't consider a dwarf on shield bearers to be mounted, nowhere does it use the word 'mounted' in the description and mounts tend to have a seperate statline, iirc the SB don't.


Erm, it says (going from memory here, so it's somewhat paraphrased): "(The Lord)..... is mounted on a shield carried by two bearers"

MrBigMr
28-08-2008, 22:46
*looks into the book*

Pg. 29:
"A Dwarf General may be carried into battle atop a shield carried by two loyal (and strong) retainers.

A General and his Shieldbearers fight as a single model with a Unit Strength of 3 (even in challenges). They are mounted on a 40mm wide by 20mm deep base. The Shieldbearers add 2 to the Armour Save of the character (to a maximum of 1+) mounted on the shield. The Shieldbearers give the General two extra WS5 Strength 4 Initiative 3 close combat attacks each round but these attacks do not benefit from any weapon (runic or otherwise) carried by the General.

If the General with Shieldbearers fights with a unit, he counts as two normal models for the purpose of working out if there is a complete rank of four models. Note that when in a unit, a Lord and his Shieldbearers may still use the 'Look out, Sir!' rule and are not considered a larger target than the other unit members."

Pg. 50:
"May have an Oath stone (+XX points) or if the Lord is the army's General, he may be carried into battle by Shieldbearers (+XX points)."

Grimtuff
28-08-2008, 22:49
Thankyou Mrbigmr.

So it says "....mounted on the shield." Seems clear cut to me.

WLBjork
29-08-2008, 08:20
Yep, just as page 55 of the BRB is even more clear cut.


..and the other refering to mounted models (cavalry and models riding monsters or chariots).

Gazak Blacktoof
29-08-2008, 11:45
So now that we know it uses the word "mounted" you're still arguing he's not "mounted"- Oh dear!

MrBigMr
29-08-2008, 16:01
Do the shieldbearers count mounted as well, as they're mounted on a 40x20mm base?

Condottiere
29-08-2008, 17:13
Maybe loaded - are those axes or mugs?

King Vyper
29-08-2008, 18:25
Yep, just as page 55 of the BRB is even more clear cut.


That should end the debate right here. The Rulebook clearly states what is consider mounted.


.and the other refering to mounted models (cavalry and models riding monsters or chariots).

The Sheildbearers are neither Cavalry, nor are they monsters or chariots.

Until GW comes out with a FAQ (Which they recently did, but missed this one) that changes this the dwarf lord is not a mounted character and swings a Great Weapon with +2.

theunwantedbeing
29-08-2008, 18:45
Armybooks overrule the rulebook when there is a conflict.

If it wasnt the case then DE crossbows wouldn't be armour piercing, as in the rulebook...they arent.
The dwarf book refers to the lord on sheildbearers as being mounted..it may only be once but that's the only reference to whether he is mounted or not that we seem to have been given.

Despite sheildbearer's not being listed as a mount in the rulebook, they are stated to be a mount in the dwarf book. A conflict, so the dwarf book must be the correct way of interpreting the rules.

So the lord is mounted.
(for once the rules back common sense! yay^_^)

Either way, your lord is never going to see combat with an opponent he will have any real chance of defeating so the point should never occur against a decent player.

Malorian
29-08-2008, 18:56
Armybooks overrule the rulebook when there is a conflict.

If it wasnt the case then DE crossbows wouldn't be armour piercing, as in the rulebook...they arent.
The dwarf book refers to the lord on sheildbearers as being mounted..it may only be once but that's the only reference to whether he is mounted or not that we seem to have been given.

Despite sheildbearer's not being listed as a mount in the rulebook, they are stated to be a mount in the dwarf book. A conflict, so the dwarf book must be the correct way of interpreting the rules.

So the lord is mounted.
(for once the rules back common sense! yay^_^)

I think you just made me change sides. I was always with the group saying it's not listed in the BRB, but you are completely right.

I still hate the rule in general (my poor questing knights...) but agree that in this case there are more reasons for it to be +1 than there is for it to be +2.

King Vyper
29-08-2008, 19:16
Armybooks overrule the rulebook when there is a conflict.

If it wasnt the case then DE crossbows wouldn't be armour piercing, as in the rulebook...they arent.
The dwarf book refers to the lord on sheildbearers as being mounted..it may only be once but that's the only reference to whether he is mounted or not that we seem to have been given.

Despite sheildbearer's not being listed as a mount in the rulebook, they are stated to be a mount in the dwarf book. A conflict, so the dwarf book must be the correct way of interpreting the rules.

So the lord is mounted.
(for once the rules back common sense! yay^_^)

Either way, your lord is never going to see combat with an opponent he will have any real chance of defeating so the point should never occur against a decent player.

I just pulled this out of the 7th ED Dwarf FAQ from Bugman's Brewery & THE Direwolf FAQ.


Q. Are dwarf lords on Shieldbearers affected by the mounted great weapon rules?
A. Going by other army rule books, units that have a mount are listed as as "mount: wolf" etc. Characters who can have a mount are listed as mount. The option in the dwarf rulebook is "carried" Also comparing to what a mounted model is Small rulebook, page 55

So either I go with the musing of some random people on Warseer or I go with Bugman and Direwolf's FAQ.

Direwolf and Bugman's for the win.

Gazak Blacktoof
29-08-2008, 19:54
Direwolf and Bugman's- groups of random people.

MrBigMr
29-08-2008, 20:11
There is one difference: the Lord is mounted, but the shieldbearers are never said to be a mount. I can mount a vace on a mantle piece, but the mantle piece is not a mount. The models are mounted on a 40x20mm base, but the base is not a mount.

I checked many of my army books and all refer to mounts as mounts. Shieldbearers are never said to be a mount.

King Vyper
29-08-2008, 20:14
Direwolf and Bugman's- groups of random people.

I was under the impression that a lot of clubs and tournments used the DW FAQ. If I am wrong please correct me.

As of right now It is close as I am going to get to an actual answer.

Grimtuff
29-08-2008, 21:17
I was under the impression that a lot of clubs and tournments used the DW FAQ. If I am wrong please correct me.

As of right now It is close as I am going to get to an actual answer.

So just because a random tournament somewhere uses it makes it official? In my best impression of JP from work: "Erm, no."

Mireadur
29-08-2008, 21:51
King you can use the rules as you prefer just like everybody else in these forums does =)

About the direwolf FAQs, eventhough i respect the guys i have a feeling that when theres something in conflict they tend to use the opinion of the councillor for that army (which appears to be always possitive for said army). I guess this leaves everybody content, something like ''if you allow me to use X ill let you take Y next time''.

Gazak Blacktoof
29-08-2008, 23:22
I was under the impression that a lot of clubs and tournments used the DW FAQ. If I am wrong please correct me.

As of right now It is close as I am going to get to an actual answer.

Lots of people have given "actual" answers- they may or may not be answers that you agree with that doesn't make them any less of an answer.

Paraphrasing Grimtuff and Mireadur- Answers from Direwolf et al are just answers- use which ever answer you (and your opponent) want.

@MrBigMr

Whether the shield bearers are a "mount" is unimportant. The rules for a great weapon are determined by whether the character is "mounted" or not- the rules you quoted state the character is indeed "mounted on the shield" when carried by shield bearers. You're welcome to hammer out the absurdity of a mounted character with no mount at your leisure.

As pointed out already the army book's definition of mounted overrules any perceived completeness for the set of conditions that describe a mounted model. I'm not sure how using the term "mounted" makes it anything other than an open-shut case for the character being "mounted".


This is going to be my last post on this thread- I was satisfied after page 1 that I had an acceptable answer but your quotation from the army book confirmed my suspicions, so I'm calling it quits for this discussion.

logan054
29-08-2008, 23:26
Direwolf and Bugman's- groups of random people.

Cant say i trust a word they say, think is im very reluctant to just a faq that (going back to the 6th ed VC book) state that the intent of white blades was magical attacks with killing yet they failed to notice the intend of beast herds ranking up (ie saying they still rank up 4 wide), just daft if you ask me. Speaking of which i think its daft you cant KB a dwarf on a shield because he has two friends rubbing his ankles better (I think he fact he has that extra height would make it easier anyways.

MrBigMr
30-08-2008, 01:04
Whether the shield bearers are a "mount" is unimportant. The rules for a great weapon are determined by whether the character is "mounted" or not- the rules you quoted state the character is indeed "mounted on the shield" when carried by shield bearers. You're welcome to hammer out the absurdity of a mounted character with no mount at your leisure.
That also means that any model mounted on a base, is mounted. I'll have to keep that in mind the next time I'm facing some great weapon infantry.


As pointed out already the army book's definition of mounted overrules any perceived completeness for the set of conditions that describe a mounted model.
If the army book overrules the rulebook, does this mean Dwarfs get 4 wide ranks?

"If the General with Shieldbearers fights with a unit, he counts as two normal models for the purpose of working out if there is a complete rank of four models."


I'm calling it quits for this discussion.
Buh-bye.

Nurgling Chieftain
30-08-2008, 01:40
If the army book overrules the rulebook, does this mean Dwarfs get 4 wide ranks?Of course. So does everyone else. That doesn't give you a rank bonus, though, if that's what you meant. :D

Condottiere
30-08-2008, 02:09
I miss 4-wide ranks - infantry columns and phalanxes aren't what they used to be.

logan054
30-08-2008, 19:31
If the army book overrules the rulebook, does this mean Dwarfs get 4 wide ranks?

The thing is that other this no rule in the book states that they get a rank bonus for only being 4 wide, this also does not state they get +1 rank bonus for being 4 wide ;)

TheDarkDaff
31-08-2008, 06:32
[QUOTE=MrBigMr;2906533]If the army book overrules the rulebook, does this mean Dwarfs get 4 wide ranks?

"If the General with Shieldbearers fights with a unit, he counts as two normal models for the purpose of working out if there is a complete rank of four models."QUOTE]

It would actually run the Other way. The Dwarf Lord on Shield Bearers would count as 2 models for a complete rank 4 wide but not for a rank 5 wide. A "complete rank" just means a full rank, not one that generates combat res for additional ranks. Look at a favourite set up for a Halberdier detachment of 3 complete ranks of 3 models.

Anton
31-08-2008, 11:56
So, did we get an ultimate answer for Lord on shield? Is he mounted or not? does he get +2S from Great Weapon or not?

theunwantedbeing
31-08-2008, 14:37
He's mounted.
As it refers to him as being mounted, but not on foot.

Plus he's clearly mounted, from a purely common sense point of view.
Blatently not "on foot" as he clearly isnt.

Condottiere
31-08-2008, 14:41
This reminds me of KB and CR.

Mireadur
31-08-2008, 21:31
being inmune to KB is some bizarre oversight too =)

PARTYCHICORITA
31-08-2008, 21:55
I just read this thread because i was bored and allthough i have no idea if the model is mounted or not i just came to realize the dwarf on the shield bearers is inmune to KB since he has US3:eek:.

hehe i guess my wardancer lord owes some dwarven generals apologies:angel:

WLBjork
01-09-2008, 09:08
So, did we get an ultimate answer for Lord on shield? Is he mounted or not? does he get +2S from Great Weapon or not?

Yeah, he's not mounted as the definition of mounted on page 55 doesn't encompass the Dwarf Lord on Shield Bearers.

TheDarkDaff
01-09-2008, 10:42
Yeah, he's not mounted as the definition of mounted on page 55 doesn't encompass the Dwarf Lord on Shield Bearers.

Too bad the list on pg55 is not an exhaustive list of things considered to be mounted.

Ganymede
01-09-2008, 16:56
Yeah, I'll reiterate a point I made earlier to stress that being mounted is more than what page 55 says.

Lizardmen FAQ

Q. Can a Slann use items that are for ‘models on foot only’?

A. No. He is not a model on foot!

There is clear precedent for non-standard mounted models within the rules. The Slann has no mount profile, is not described as mounted, and is in neither of the categories detailed on page 55. And yet, it still would not benefit from +2 strength from a greatweapon.

MrBigMr
02-09-2008, 06:12
I remember one thread about placing mounted characters into infantry units and when someone tried to use the diagram of placing a Slann into a guard unit as reference, many were against it, saying "that's just an exception for the Slann and doesn't work as a universal rule for all."

See, as long as the rules are concerned, the Lord is still on foot. In description he is defined to be carried on a shield, but by rules it's a one statline model. Sure, it gets the extra attacks and armour bonues, but many things give armour bonus and even the Slann has that little Skink to do its fighting and by rules there is only the Slann, not Slann and Skink.


Would one argue for a Squig Hoppers or SoC Pleasureseekers to be affected by spells targeting mounts, when by models and description they're mounted units?


I'm not really saying one or the other on the matter anymore, as I can see the point of either argument. If GW was to FAQ it properly, I will accept their ruling no matter what, but now it's far too open to me at least to say anything definitive. I don't think I know a person who considers the lord to be mounted.

Chaplain of Chaos
02-09-2008, 06:34
So this is a slight aside. My buddy puts a mounted Vampire Lord into his units of ghouls, zombies, grave guard all the time. I assumed this was legal. Is it?

WLBjork
02-09-2008, 08:01
Depends.

Mounted on a non-flying creature, a chracter can join any unit.

The new (2-3 month old) VC Army Book has an unit specific exception for Zombies who can no longer have a character join them.


Too bad the list on pg55 is not an exhaustive list of things considered to be mounted.

I'm afraid it is. It does not use the words "for example", "including", "such as", "e.g" or something similar.



The Slaan example is not what you (or others) think Ganymede.

The FAQ makes the Slaan unique. It's not on foot, but note that the FAQ doesn't state that the Slaan is mounted.

TheDarkDaff
02-09-2008, 11:28
I'm afraid it is. It does not use the words "for example", "including", "such as", "e.g" or something similar.

Then explain Pegasus Knights, Centigors and Terradons which are all considered to be mounted but fit none of the descriptions on pg55.

@MrBigMr - I would say all those units are affected by spells that affect mounts. They are mounted so they are affected.

Mireadur
02-09-2008, 18:25
arent khorne mastiffs US2 too?

Ganymede
03-09-2008, 02:57
The Slaan example is not what you (or others) think Ganymede.

The FAQ makes the Slaan unique. It's not on foot, but note that the FAQ doesn't state that the Slaan is mounted.


That puts you in the unenviable position of arguing that "mounted" and "not on foot" are not contextually similar. Bummer.

WLBjork
03-09-2008, 07:27
Then explain Pegasus Knights, Centigors and Terradons which are all considered to be mounted but fit none of the descriptions on pg55.

Pegasus Knights - rules for Flying Cavalry state that they are Cavalry (and thus, mounted)

Centigors - Cavalry (and thus mounted)

Terradons - Don't have the book, but from what I remember, you'd be right in stating that they don't fit into the Mounted definition. Not Mounted.


That puts you in the unenviable position of arguing that "mounted" and "not on foot" are not contextually similar. Bummer.

Well, not mutually exclusive at any rate. But strangely, nothing requires them to be either On Foot or Mounted.

logan054
03-09-2008, 11:57
but again he dosnt fit into what it says for infantry either ;) again it states that infantry is a model on foot, a dwarf lord on a shield bearer clearly isnt a model on foot, its being carried/mounted on a shield.

Seeing as you can only be one or the other i would go with mounted, aside the fact three lines of text is hardly a actual definition of a troop class but rather a guideline. Really the long and short of it is that people dont think its fair that a dwarf on a shield loses his strength 6, personally i dont think its it fair that my characters lose the strength bonus on a horse, i also dont think its fair that a shield bearer makes a dwarf lord immune to killing blow via a loop hole created with the edition shift (clearly this wasnt the original intent hence the rune that makes you immune).

You cant always have you cake and eat it.

King Vyper
03-09-2008, 15:06
It looks like someone was able to get an answer from GW about this.

http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=160345&page=2

Nurgling Chieftain
03-09-2008, 19:15
Anybody can get an answer from GW. That doesn't make it official, or even necessarily agree with the last answer from GW, nor the next one.

An anonymous person getting an off-the-cuff answer from an anonymous (supposed) GW staffer does not settle anything at all, here.

MrBigMr
03-09-2008, 19:21
I think that on the matter of rules, the customer is not always right. What do you people want? If they say it's not mounted, it's not good enough; if they FAQ it, the writer screwed up; and if it reads in the next army book, it's clearly an error and will be fixed in the FAQ.

Nurgling Chieftain
03-09-2008, 21:41
I think that on the matter of rules, the customer is not always right.Huh? If I want to play tic-tac-toe with my WFB figs, GW isn't going to try to stop me.


If they say it's not mounted, it's not good enough...When by "they" you mean a single minimum wage Joe who couldn't get out of answering phones, and not a game designer nor at all answerable to the game design division, yes, that's not good enough. Now, when the codex in question states he's mounted, and the model and fluff clearly have him riding on something, I call that good enough.

MrBigMr
04-09-2008, 00:34
Yes, and my SoC daemonic herald was mounted on a 25mm base. Word "mounted" has more meaning than the mere rule of being on a mount. GW uses it guite often on things that have nothing to do with the rules itself. Seeing that the only time it talks about anything of the lord being mounted anywhere, is right after it is stated the shieldbearers are mounted on a 40x20mm base. You're ready to talk down a GW employee when his ruling does not suit you, but I'm more than willing to bet that in your view there is no way they would have lot something like that slip into the army book if they really didn't mean it. Because we know how careful GW is with their products.

And if we should go by model, how does one explain that Centigors are also "mounted" when it's one creature, where as I don't think there's anything saying about Squig Hoppers being mounted (at least no long term Orc player I know has ever claimed for any of the benefits, like armour save bonuses for their hoppers).

WLBjork
04-09-2008, 09:32
MRBigMR:

Form page 7 of the BRB


Cavalry
The term cavalry refers to riders mounted on horse-sized creatures that have only 1 Wound in their profile, mounted on a 25mm by 50mm 'cavalry' base. It also refers to other four-legged creatures, such as warhounds, wolves etc, that have 1 Wound on their profile and are mounted on a cavalry base.

That part I highlighted fits the Centigors.

So, Centigors are Cavalry.

Cavalry is mounted.

Centigors are mounted.

Squig Hoppers are one of those "not mounted" units that falls into the gap.

MrBigMr
04-09-2008, 11:06
Yep. Can someone really argue why a centigor (if given the opportunity) wouldn't be able to wield a great weapon to full effect? It's not like it's riding something, it is the something. Hence, it's "on foot", right? At least by fluff. And don't dragon ogres have more or less 4 legs (they're centauroids, right?) and I do think they they get both the benefit of 2 hand weapons and the full bonus strength of a greater weapon. But a centigor somehow is more limited.

And then there's the hopper. It's a night goblin riding a squig, is it not? Clearly not "on foot" or anything, but as far as the rules are concerned, it's just infantry.

Gazak Blacktoof
04-09-2008, 11:33
Centigors have special rules to allow them to use certain weapons as if they were on foot.

logan054
04-09-2008, 12:15
It looks like someone was able to get an answer from GW about this.

http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=160345&page=2

No someone rang up mail order, that isnt a answer from GW, its a answer from a blueshirt (as they know the rules so well ;) )


Yep. Can someone really argue why a centigor (if given the opportunity) wouldn't be able to wield a great weapon to full effect? It's not like it's riding something, it is the something. Hence, it's "on foot", right? At least by fluff. And don't dragon ogres have more or less 4 legs (they're centauroids, right?) and I do think they they get both the benefit of 2 hand weapons and the full bonus strength of a greater weapon. But a centigor somehow is more limited.

I think next time you should pick up the army book and read the rules for the unit question before using it as example, as already said they have a special rule that would allow this ;)


Centigors have special rules to allow them to use certain weapons as if they were on foot.


Well atleast someone has bothered to read more than one army book :)

MrBigMr
04-09-2008, 12:39
I believe the rules is that they can use hand weapon/shield as if on foot, nothing more. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think they get to fight from two ranks with their spears, do they? But they do not count as on foot, even though they are one model and not mounted. Right?

I've never said they don't get any benefits, merely that they don't normally count as on foot even though they are one creature standing on its own legs while a squig hopper is not, and the rules give them benefits the other way around.


Maybe you shouldn't nit pick on people when you don't come up with anything better to add. Admit it, if the GW blueshirt had said "yes, it's mounted" you wouldn't have any problem with it and would just count it as one more nail in the coffin of this entire debate, wouldn't you?

Colonel Fitzgerald
04-09-2008, 13:00
I see that punctuating sentences with winking smileys is alive and well ;)

I have an opinion on this matter, for what it's worth - I'm about to compose my letter to Jervis Johnson as the 'blueshirt' at GW HQ advised me, to ask him to clear this matter up in an updated FAQ. I suggest, as the rules for the Dwarven Sheildbearers may be interpreted both ways, that we all who have an interest in the matter likewise write to Jervis - as the weight of the question will surely promote a swift answer?

I almost forgot, ;)

Nurgling Chieftain
04-09-2008, 21:08
You should just drop the Centigor example. The rules specify very precisely how they work, which is a unique hybrid of mounted and unmounted rules. You should also drop the base mounting argument, since that's just pure stupidity.

Now, I have considerable sympathy to the arguments that models like squig hoppers and terradons should count as mounted, since the models clearly involve riders on mounts. One of the primary arguments against is that the mounts don't have profiles, while the Dwarf Shield bearers have almost every stat relevant to their position: WS, S, I, A. If they'd simply organized the same set of stats on a line, there would be fewer people willing to argue the point. I'm not convinced that having them in a parenthetical actually changes the meaning any.