PDA

View Full Version : What counts as a mount?



MrBigMr
30-08-2008, 21:14
Started thinking from the shield bearer thread, what makes a character count as mounted? And does it have to do anything with actually having a mount, as in "doesn't need a mount, just that its mounted" (as some seem to argue)? If a model is mounted on a base, is it mounted by rules (such as by SoC, a Herald is mounted on a 25mm base)? Or does it actually need a mount to be mounted on it?

theunwantedbeing
30-08-2008, 21:35
Being monted on a base does not constitute being mounted.
Anyone sugguesting this deserves to be shot, regardless of whether it's in jest or not.

As for what's classed as mounted.
The rulebook has a nice list of most things that are mounted.
Which is basically, anything not walking using their own 2 feet, is mounted.

Some cavalry based troops that are single models are classed as mounted, despite not being a rider and mount.

A lord on sheildbearers is mounted.

Abhorash
30-08-2008, 21:52
And again when im looking for something to convert warseer helps. Beastial vampire who is on cavarly base... something like varghulf.

Anyways. Guy who is mounted in rules = mounted. No matter if the model it self is mounted, atleast that what i consider mounted... If i understood your question right.

Urgat
30-08-2008, 22:03
The rulebook has a nice list of most things that are mounted.
Which is basically, anything not walking using their own 2 feet, is mounted.


Basically, but not always: squig hoppers are not mounted, they count as infantry, for instance.

MrBigMr
30-08-2008, 22:06
Old SoC Pleasureseekers were "officially" daemonettes riding those tittyworms, but were just big monsters with single statline.

Braad
31-08-2008, 00:45
I believe Terradons are also one single stat-line... Really gives troubles when using the collar of zorga.
This is one of those things where GW should be a little more clear about and make everything in the same style.

But I consider mounted: every model that does not do his own walking... more or less...

Mireadur
31-08-2008, 03:12
Thing with terradons and squig hoppers is that both riders dont participate in CC at all. Skinks are only used for their BS when throwing javelins and night goblin riders well... They are just there on top of the mad bull :p

alextroy
31-08-2008, 06:31
A model is mounted when it has a seperate Statline for the mount and said mount has 1 or more wounds on the profile.

Griefbringer
31-08-2008, 08:11
A model is mounted when it has a seperate Statline for the mount and said mount has 1 or more wounds on the profile.

Isn't this the definition of a monstrous mount nowadays?

Sherlocko
31-08-2008, 10:31
Isn't this the definition of a monstrous mount nowadays?

You are not a monstrous mount if you have 1 wound, only if you have more than 1 wound. So that definition seems pretty nice for monstrous mounts and non-monstrous mounts. :)

Tarax
31-08-2008, 11:07
I agree with Theunwantedbeing. Anything not standing on its own 2 (or more) feet is classed as mounted.

Although I would say the Dwarfs Lord on shieldbearers is not mounted. His is more or less fighting from a platform. This would also count for Skinks on a Stegadon and the old Steam Tank with Fighting Platform (or War Wagon).
They benefit from special save rules given with the unit. In that way they are not normal mounted troops.

DeathlessDraich
31-08-2008, 11:34
Started thinking from the shield bearer thread, what makes a character count as mounted? And does it have to do anything with actually having a mount, as in "doesn't need a mount, just that its mounted" (as some seem to argue)? If a model is mounted on a base, is it mounted by rules (such as by SoC, a Herald is mounted on a 25mm base)? Or does it actually need a mount to be mounted on it?

Good question!
This is one of the many basic defintions that is lacking in Warhammer rules.



The rulebook has a nice list of most things that are mounted.
Which is basically, anything not walking using their own 2 feet, is mounted.
.

Hmm.
Sorry an incomplete definition.
'not walking' is not general enough
'2 feet' - Centigors have hooves and chariots without characters have wheels and steeds.


A model is mounted when it has a seperate Statline for the mount and said mount has 1 or more wounds on the profile.

Sorry, this defintion reduces to - "Being mounted requires a mount". Mount itself has to be defined.
As for the separate statline - Consider War Hydra, Squig herds and Warmachines



You are not a monstrous mount if you have 1 wound, only if you have more than 1 wound. So that definition seems pretty nice for monstrous mounts and non-monstrous mounts. :)

??

My definition of mount - 3 criteria:
i) When 2 or more models are merged together as model components into one model.
ii) Movement (M) is determined by one model component.

iii) This component has to physically carry the other models.
To represent this the base size for the mounted model is the base size of the carrier. The carried model base sizes and bases are ignored since they are carried.

Griefbringer
31-08-2008, 20:00
Ooops, seems like I misread alextroy - thought he wrote "more than 1 wound" instead of "1 or more wounds".

Time to go and repent for my mistakes.

[SPANK! SPANK! SPANK!]

MrBigMr
31-08-2008, 20:38
Good question!
This is one of the many basic defintions that is lacking in Warhammer rules.
Indeed. The problem I really have with shieldbearers is that the only arguments towards its mountness (I like making up words, yay) is that "it's not the model doing the walking" and that it says "mounted" in one line in the entire army book, which comes right after it is said that the shieldbearers are "mounted" on 40x20mm base. So it can as well mean that "while on his shield, the lords gets +2 to his armour save" (the book reads: "The shieldbearers add 2 to the Armour Save of the character mounted on the shield.") And as already stated, there's a whole lot of models out there that are "mounted" but do not count as mounted as long as the rules count.

I think that to be mounted, one actually needs a god damn mount. The mere word "mounted" doesn't really do much since I'm sure you can find more than few references of models being "mounted" on bases (the shieldbearers themselves, SoC Daemonic Herald, etc.), or similar stuff. For all intent and purposes the SBs and the lord are a single entity, not a rider and mount per se (though it might look like it). They don't have their own statline, all they do is alter the US of the lord, up the armour and give it two extra attacks.

I just don't find the answer to be as simple and clear cut as others seem to. There are too many variables still hanging in the air and too many questions left unanswered.


[SPANK! SPANK! SPANK!]
May I suggest those red GW measuring sticks. They're perfect for that. I always punish/motivate myself during games with them.

Nurgling Chieftain
31-08-2008, 20:56
I think that to be mounted, one actually needs a god damn mount.See, I think the guy in question HAS a "god damn" mount.


For all intent and purposes the SBs and the lord are a single entity, not a rider and mount per se (though it might look like it). They don't have their own statline, all they do is alter the US of the lord, up the armour and give it two extra attacks.For all intents and purposes, they are a rider and a mount. The "mount" does indeed have its own (partial) statline, its attacks are separate from the rider, and it even gives him an associated armour bonus. It is a mount, it says its a mount, and it has virtually all the same rules as a mount.

Would you still argue if the shieldbearers stats were given as a line item rather than included in a parenthetical?

MrBigMr
01-09-2008, 03:49
Where does it say the Shieldbearers are a mount? I've read the shieldbearer bit now twice more through and I can't find such a bit anywhere. And yes, if the shieldbearers had their ownstatline like any other mount - show me a mount that's a mount as long as the rules are concerned (such as affected by spells that affect mounts) and doesn't have stats - I would be leaning far more towards it being a mount.

Many things give you an armour bonus, many things give you extra attacks, some even seperate from your own statlines, etc. And they're not mounts.

DeathlessDraich
01-09-2008, 06:54
Having a separate/multiple statline is a red herring and not a good criterion for determining whether a model is mounted or not since there are other models with separate/multiple statline e.g. warmachines.

Shieldbearers - This will always remain a debate until an FAQ sorts it out. Since it is very similar to a Palanquin, I regard it as a mount but that is simply an opinion.

TheDarkDaff
01-09-2008, 08:06
There are also "mounted" models with a single statline (Terradons & Pegasus Knights). I'm not sure where Centigors & Bull Centaurs fit in the mix of things but i can also see them getting a bit of both worlds.

WLBjork
01-09-2008, 09:04
As far as mounted goes, there is a definition on page 55.

Sure that's for weapons, but in the absence of anything else...

Mounted models are Cavalry, models riding Monstrous Mounts and Chariots.

Condottiere
01-09-2008, 09:37
Despite their low centre of gravity, I can't see a Dwarf being able to concentrate enough to get a +2 strength bonus for swinging around a great weapon while balancing himself on a shield.

At the same time, if he was using a lance or a spear, I can't see the shieldbearers providing enough momentum to gain any strength bonus that way either.

DeathlessDraich
01-09-2008, 14:34
There are also "mounted" models with a single statline (Terradons & Pegasus Knights). I'm not sure where Centigors & Bull Centaurs fit in the mix of things but i can also see them getting a bit of both worlds.

Bull Centaurs - unknown
but
Centigors are meant to be cavalry in all respects (except their HW/s function in the same way as infantry) and hence are mounted.



As far as mounted goes, there is a definition on page 55.

Sure that's for weapons, but in the absence of anything else...

Mounted models are Cavalry, models riding Monstrous Mounts and Chariots.

Isn't that part of the rules simply examples of mounted models instead of a definition?

Urgat
01-09-2008, 15:34
Despite their low centre of gravity, I can't see a Dwarf being able to concentrate enough to get a +2 strength bonus for swinging around a great weapon while balancing himself on a shield.

At the same time, if he was using a lance or a spear, I can't see the shieldbearers providing enough momentum to gain any strength bonus that way either.


I can't see them taking well being called "mount" either :p

logan054
01-09-2008, 16:33
As far as mounted goes, there is a definition on page 55.

Sure that's for weapons, but in the absence of anything else...

Mounted models are Cavalry, models riding Monstrous Mounts and Chariots.

Hes also not infantry as he isnt a model on foot, hes a model standing on a shield carried by two dwarfs ;) also if you, if he was infantry you would also receive a -1 to hit from shooting.

WLBjork
02-09-2008, 08:12
Isn't that part of the rules simply examples of mounted models instead of a definition?

It doesn't give any hint that that rule is an example.

I'd expect them to use the words "for example", "e.g.", "such as" or something similar to clarify an example.

Gazak Blacktoof
02-09-2008, 10:59
Isn't that part of the rules simply examples of mounted models instead of a definition?

I believe it is, the parenthesis are enough of an indication. Besides, if we're dealing with the shield bearer lord (again) he's described as mounted in the dwarf book.

Darktheos
02-09-2008, 18:40
Are there even dwarf players that don't put runes on his weapon?

Colonel Fitzgerald
03-09-2008, 13:29
Hes also not infantry as he isnt a model on foot, hes a model standing on a shield carried by two dwarfs ;) also if you, if he was infantry you would also receive a -1 to hit from shooting.

Why do people always wink when they finish a sentence?;)

Just always wondered that lol - no offence.

Anyway, for me, the Dwarf Lord on a shield is infantry, as he can join infantry units, taking up two spaces in the front rank.

Regardless though, I'm going to ring the GW to ask them to FAQ this one - maybe they will - it's a question with potentially two correct and opposed answers (yeah, as if THAT ever happens with GW games:rolleyes:)


RIGHT - I called the Games Workshop and asked, is the Dwarf Lord on a shield Infantry or Mounted - their answer, definitely INFANTRY. I asked how do I go about getting this included inthe FAQs and they said, "Write to Jervis" - so okay, I will then!

Gazak Blacktoof
03-09-2008, 15:44
If they FAQ it they'll likely go with RAW, the dwarf book says he's mounted.

MrBigMr
03-09-2008, 15:52
Fitzgerald, you might be a mere colonel, but you are my battle-brother, my brother-captain, my Emperor.

King Vyper
03-09-2008, 17:21
If they FAQ it they'll likely go with RAW, the dwarf book says he's mounted.

I smell Troll.

Gazak Blacktoof
03-09-2008, 18:06
Well that was totally uncalled for.

King Vyper
03-09-2008, 18:15
Well that was totally uncalled for.

No, what you posted was uncalled for.

It's called flogging a dead horse, mate.

Either you are just trying to stir things up or just have to get the last word in.

I could be wrong and I maybe misreading what you posted.

MrBigMr
03-09-2008, 18:21
No, I agree with Blacktoof. It's not the Troll's fault it has a strong bodily odor. It's glandural. My cousing was a Troll and she couldn't help it. People, please, think of the Trolls. They are how God made them.

Gazak Blacktoof
04-09-2008, 11:43
No, what you posted was uncalled for.

It's called flogging a dead horse, mate.

Either you are just trying to stir things up or just have to get the last word in.

I could be wrong and I maybe misreading what you posted.


Nope, I was telling you what the current policy on FAQs seems to be ie they go with RAW unless they've completely messed up.

The army book uses the term "mounted"- true its only once, but how many times does it need to be there for it to be a rule?

Feel free to reply and have the last word.

logan054
04-09-2008, 12:13
Anyway, for me, the Dwarf Lord on a shield is infantry, as he can join infantry units, taking up two spaces in the front rank.

characters on steeds can join infantry units, i fail to see you point here, i think the only difference is that the dwarf lord is deployed longs while the steed is deployed short ways.


RIGHT - I called the Games Workshop and asked, is the Dwarf Lord on a shield Infantry or Mounted - their answer, definitely INFANTRY. I asked how do I go about getting this included inthe FAQs and they said, "Write to Jervis" - so okay, I will then!

You know that when you phone the rules biys you just speaking to someone from mail order right? GW staff are not renowned for their keen rules knowledge. I seem to recall a GW staff teaching a guy how to play, magically his Spear elves had WS5, he even went and got the book to proof it to me ;) he also collects HE..

Colonel Fitzgerald
04-09-2008, 18:03
Alive and well and so it ever will be, the smug winking smiley that punctuates almost every sentence these days. Oh, hold on, I used a full stop when I shouldn't ;)

Right - to clarify my stance on this, as I seem to be taking a battering for having, somewhat foolishly I admit, asked the manufacturers about one of their products, I have asked for official and proper clarification of the matter of the Dwarf Lord on a shield from Jervis Johnson, as I was advised by the helpful and friendly staffer at GW. I have further asked that he please update the errata document, as this issue is a large one and can quite fairly be interpreted either way. I will post his response once I receive it and hopefully, somebody at GW will update the errata.

One last thing: ;)

Edit

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet specifically but the BRB states that Cavalry come on a 25 x 50 mm base. The Dwarf Lord's rules state that he is A) No larger than the other dwarves around him and B) comes on a 20 x 40 mm base.

Just may be worth considering whilst we wait for JJ.





;)

Mireadur
05-09-2008, 18:32
Not talking about cavalry but mounted. We already know hes not a cavalry model unless you consider the shieldbearers donkeys :p

Ganymede
05-09-2008, 19:31
I'd say that if the model is not "on foot," then it is mounted.



Old SoC Pleasureseekers were "officially" daemonettes riding those tittyworms, but were just big monsters with single statline.

The SoC FAQ clarified that while daemonic cavalry had a single statline (there was nothing to indicate that this was a cavalry figure other than the model itself), it still counted as cavalry. For instance, despite the fact that these beasties were a single model with a substantial unit strength and a single stat line, they were still vulnerable to killing blow.

logan054
06-09-2008, 10:56
Right - to clarify my stance on this, as I seem to be taking a battering for having, somewhat foolishly I admit, asked the manufacturers about one of their products, I have asked for official and proper clarification of the matter of the Dwarf Lord on a shield from Jervis Johnson, as I was advised by the helpful and friendly staffer at GW. I have further asked that he please update the errata document, as this issue is a large one and can quite fairly be interpreted either way. I will post his response once I receive it and hopefully, somebody at GW will update the errata.

The staff in the store are friendly, most of them dont have a clue about the rules, they seriously just make them up as they go along. In the past me and my friends used to call GW for answers, got a different answer every time. If they update the errata all the better as far as im concerned, still i doubt it will happen (one of my mates used to work in mail order hence why i know who answered you rules question).


Not sure if this has been mentioned yet specifically but the BRB states that Cavalry come on a 25 x 50 mm base. The Dwarf Lord's rules state that he is A) No larger than the other dwarves around him and B) comes on a 20 x 40 mm base.

Who mentioned cavalry, i think it was very clear that mounted does not instantly mean cavalry, a chariot is a mount (this isnt on a 25x50 base) and follows the same rules, a Juggernaut is a mount (actually its cavalry), thats on a 50x50 base ;)


Just may be worth considering whilst we wait for JJ.





;)

Not really, you needed to look on a far broader spectrum than guys on horses because if i used your i would have strength 7 guys on a daemonic steeds and chariots (not that i would mind :) ). Well might just be worth be considering ;)

Tarax
07-09-2008, 08:45
I was just thinking:

Aren't the shieldbearers some sort of equipment to the Dwarf character?

I mean, it gives the 'bearer' some extra attacks at a certain WS, S and I. And it does not come with its own stats with W, Ld and T. Some Magic Items do the same.

Perhaps it's similar to Familiars or Tooth-/Sword-/Luck-Gnoblars, where you can get extra abilities from a model, but do not need to represent them on the table.

The only difference is that the Dwarf will have them represented.

This would mean that the Dwarf is not mounted and counts as being on foot.

Mireadur
07-09-2008, 11:06
2 attacks, +2 armour save, +1 extra US for the unit and immunity to KB for 25 points is great isnt it?

logan054
07-09-2008, 11:11
isnt that the same as a mount then, a equipment that gives you some lower WS A's and a better save? i dont see many magic items that offer all that and change the base size, sounds awful lot like a mount to me.

Zoolander
09-09-2008, 18:53
I would think a model is considered mounted if the rider and the "mount" have separate stat lines.

"Mounted models are Cavalry, models riding Monstrous Mounts and Chariots."

That leaves out a lot of mounted units, IMO, such as warhawk riders.

"There are also "mounted" models with a single statline (Terradons & Pegasus Knights). "

Pegasus knights have two statlines.

Lots of units are counted as being mounted for certain effects. For example, Centigors are clearly not mounted units, yet they receive a +1 STR when charging as if mounted. This is a special case, given in the unit's description.

Mounts (unless they are monstrous) always give +1 AS. So that is another clue for you. If you do not receive a +1 bonus to AS, you are either on a monster or not mounted at all.

Generally speaking if a model is considered mounted, it will say so in it's description. If you have 1 statline and nothing to state it is considered mounted, then assume it's not.

That's my opinion anyway.

logan054
09-09-2008, 20:03
well you do know that warhawks riders, peg knights are classed a flying cavalry in the army books right, Terradons actually have the rule mounted and the stegadon rule say its classed a ridden monster.

Tarax
10-09-2008, 09:11
Indications of a mount:

-they have a separate stat-line (not just an increase to the rider's stats)

-they improve your armour save by +1 (or +2 for certain mounts)

Monstrous mount only:

-you can direct attacks directly at them

-they don't increase your save

-shooting hits are randomized

There could be more. Please feel free to add.
Disclaimer: this is no argument for or against anything said before by anyone, just a summary of what could count as a mount.

logan054
10-09-2008, 19:35
Terradons have one stat yet still count as mounted...

Tarax
11-09-2008, 07:40
Some people claim they are not mounted. That's just one of the issues we're discussing here.

Terradons are one of the worst examples of mounted units.

logan054
11-09-2008, 11:21
I dont see how they could, it actually states they are mounted in the army book, if they are claiming they arnt mounting they are either cheating or cant read.

MrBigMr
11-09-2008, 12:39
Don't worry, no body wants to believe that torment blade gives you +1 attack or that a Necron monolith gets one extra attack every time it suffers a weapon destroyed result.

Tarax
12-09-2008, 07:57
I dont see how they could, it actually states they are mounted in the army book, if they are claiming they arnt mounting they are either cheating or cant read.

Correct, it says the Skinks are mounted on the Terradon. However there is no statline for the Skinks. Usually you use the T of the rider, not the mount. Skinks have a T of 2, but the Terradon (entry) has 3.
The 6+ save they get, could just as well be some kind of Scaly Skin.

I'm not saying Terradons are not mounted, just that the rules are not consistent. Also read my sig, line 3.

logan054
12-09-2008, 12:12
No it say


Mounted: skinks riding a terradon get a 6+ armour save

It clearly isnt scaly skin either, every unit in the book that has scaly skin states in its unit entry that is has scaly skin, basically you just making stuff up and hoping people wont notice. The important part is that the rule is called mounted the effect is described afterward, single stateline or not its the same as the Stegadon.

Colonel Fitzgerald
21-10-2008, 13:04
Right - I said I'd ome back in & tell you what Jervis said - I am less than impressed. The upshot of the letter, that took WEEKS to get to me, was that he's told Alessio, anything official would need to be FAQd in the Errata (I did ask for them to do this) & that in the meantime, dice off.

DICE OFF?:wtf:

To say I'm underwhelmed by the GW right now is an understatement. A rulebook that's thrown together & army books with even more rules missing - balls to our investment of time & money. We're just the customers.

Makes me wanna play chess instead.

Devon Harmon
21-10-2008, 16:10
Mounts (unless they are monstrous) always give +1 AS. So that is another clue for you. If you do not receive a +1 bonus to AS, you are either on a monster or not mounted at all.



It is my understanding that only mounted cavalry are given the +1 AS. This is loosely defined as "cavalry models that consist of a mount and a rider" (pg. 30). Cavalry is defined as models on a 25 x 50 base (pg. 71), so the +1 AS only applies to models consisting of a mount and rider that are mounted on a 25 x 50 base. Models mounted in a chariot do not gain +1AS, as a chariot is not cavalry, so mounts do not always give +1 AS. Characters in chariots actually gain +2 AS vs. Shooting (or use the chariot's AS, whichever is better), but gain no AS bonus in Close Combat.

Many units have special rules that clarify how they interact with the rules. For example, the Terradons have a special rule that they are "mounted" and gain +1 AS. Centigors have rules that clarify their status, as do bull centaurs (it is in a FAQ). I don't think this is an area where all the models in the game can easily be broken down into discreet categories. As such I think interactions with "mounted" units might need to be adjudicated on a case by case basis.

EvC
21-10-2008, 16:20
Here's a question: can you Beast Cowers a Terradon unit? I can't work out whether it'd be valid or not, since it's more like a flying infantry unit with the mounted rule...

Devon Harmon
21-10-2008, 17:13
Here's a question: can you Beast Cowers a Terradon unit? I can't work out whether it'd be valid or not, since it's more like a flying infantry unit with the mounted rule...


I'd say no. My reasoning is that Beast Cowers says that it can only be cast on cavalry, swarms, chariots, or monsters. Terradons are units of flyers, so they do not meet the target criteria. However, I'd say that the Beast Cowers could be cast against units of flying cavalry, as I see flying cavalry as meeting the "cavalry" targeting criteria, but I could see that being argued either way. It would depend on whether or not Cavalry and Flying Cavalry are two entirely diffetent categories, or if Flying Cavalry is a subset of Cavalry. Page 71 would seem to support the notion that they are two discreet categories. The answer would turn on whether the Beast Cowers affects all Cavalry (the class of non-flying units mounted on 25 x 50 bases) or cavalry (a term used to describe all units on 25 x 50 bases).

MrBigMr
21-10-2008, 18:03
DICE OFF?:wtf:
You know what GW can "off"?


Right - I said I'd ome back in & tell you what Jervis said - I am less than impressed. The upshot of the letter, that took WEEKS to get to me, was that he's told Alessio, anything official would need to be FAQd in the Errata (I did ask for them to do this) & that in the meantime, dice off.
So, are they gonna FAQ it or not? Well, at least all I know play it as not a mount, so for now my lord (http://i338.photobucket.com/albums/n418/MrBigMr/Dwarfs/lord-on-sb.jpg) will ride that shield like there's no tomorrow.

Drow__Warrior
21-10-2008, 22:54
A dwarf with shieldbearers is not mounted. If the rules were intended for him to be a mounted model, it would say consider him a cavalry model. ect. ect.

Besides, he has US 3, which is more of a step towards monster than anything else. If your going to make the cav arguement, you should be making a monster argument as well, both of wich are just silly.

He is a normal model on foot, with the addition of a few rules such as the +2 AC, extra attacks, and base size.

Therefore, no KB immunity, no reduced STR for taking a great weapon or any of that trash. Just read the rules

Gazak Blacktoof
21-10-2008, 23:55
Argh! Not this thread again. The dwarf lord discussion was what spawned this thread in the first place. IIRC somebody posted the shield bearer rules and it even included the word "mounted".

MrBigMr
22-10-2008, 00:05
Argh! Not this thread again. The dwarf lord discussion was what spawned this thread in the first place. IIRC somebody posted the shield bearer rules and it even included the word "mounted".
You can milk that word as long as you want to, but either it's a dice off before FAQed like Colonel there said about the letter, or you better prepare to count all models mounted as many of them are sure to be "mounted" on their bases. Hey, if it says "mounted", so it must mean it too.

Kalec
22-10-2008, 00:58
Besides, he has US 3,

Therefore, no KB immunity,

These cannot both be correcr.

Drow__Warrior
22-10-2008, 01:33
My apologies, he is indeed immune to KB due to unit strength 3, regardless of his troop type/classification.

theunwantedbeing
22-10-2008, 01:38
You can milk that word as long as you want to, but either it's a dice off before FAQed like Colonel there said about the letter, or you better prepare to count all models mounted as many of them are sure to be "mounted" on their bases. Hey, if it says "mounted", so it must mean it too.

There are 2 types of people in this world.
Those who stop when they read the word mounted on a base, and those who keep reading and find the correct answer.

Your the first type.

SlaaneshSlave
22-10-2008, 01:54
Old SoC Pleasureseekers were "officially" daemonettes riding those tittyworms, but were just big monsters with single statline.
A single statline, yet they still got a 6+ save due to being cav. Go figure.

Colonel Fitzgerald
23-10-2008, 08:41
You know what GW can "off"?


So, are they gonna FAQ it or not? Well, at least all I know play it as not a mount, so for now my lord (http://i338.photobucket.com/albums/n418/MrBigMr/Dwarfs/lord-on-sb.jpg) will ride that shield like there's no tomorrow.


They 'may' FAQ it - no promises. It was the worst example of customer service I've seen in some time; "Yes, by not answering this question officially I'm breaking a 250 point Lord choice, but meh." They (GW) suck big time on this issue. Shame. I really like Fantasy.

Badbones777
23-10-2008, 14:46
They 'may' FAQ it - no promises. It was the worst example of customer service I've seen in some time; "Yes, by not answering this question officially I'm breaking a 250 point Lord choice, but meh." They (GW) suck big time on this issue. Shame. I really like Fantasy.

That is pretty apalling. In our games though, I for one am content to say he isn't and carry on like we have been. We might as well since by 'faq' they actually probably the meant the 8th ed. army book!

MrBigMr
23-10-2008, 15:27
Hey, Colonel, can I get a PM of the letter? I'd like to print it out and present to anyone who want's to argue about the matter. At least I would have an official concent to roll for it.

logan054
23-10-2008, 15:50
Here's a question: can you Beast Cowers a Terradon unit? I can't work out whether it'd be valid or not, since it's more like a flying infantry unit with the mounted rule...

I would say yes because the army book clearly states they are mounted, to be mounted you need a mount regardless of the single profile.


There are 2 types of people in this world.
Those who stop when they read the word mounted on a base, and those who keep reading and find the correct answer.

Your the first type.

your forgetting the third type, those who look at other sources to get a correct answer, the 2nd type of person you mention only reads enough to get the answer they desire ;)

Colonel Fitzgerald
23-10-2008, 16:04
Hey, Colonel, can I get a PM of the letter? I'd like to print it out and present to anyone who want's to argue about the matter. At least I would have an official concent to roll for it.

Well I will have a dig around - it ended up in my pile of contempt mail sort soon after I'd read it - I said I'd put it up when I got it so I'll have a look & put it up.

Colonel Fitzgerald
23-10-2008, 16:07
That is pretty apalling. In our games though, I for one am content to say he isn't and carry on like we have been. We might as well since by 'faq' they actually probably the meant the 8th ed. army book!

I can't see that dicing off to see if the army general counts as one thing or another frankly is a logical or grown up solution - he must be one or the other. The fact that he's got an unique base - 20mmx40mm, unlike any other unit, infantry or mounted (to my knowledge) sort of doesn't help either. Nor does the sentence in the Dwarf book that states he's no larger than the Dwarves around him. Give him a Rune of Fortitude to make him a W4 model, is he a monster? The Dwarf thing got very complex very quickly.

I think that he should count as Infantry, if for no other reason than Dwarves don't get any cavalry at all, so it fits.

Badbones777
23-10-2008, 16:13
I can't see that dicing off to see if the army general counts as one thing or another frankly is a logical or grown up solution - he must be one or the other. The fact that he's got an unique base - 20mmx40mm, unlike any other unit, infantry or mounted (to my knowledge) sort of doesn't help either. Nor does the sentence in the Dwarf book that states he's no larger than the Dwarves around him. Give him a Rune of Fortitude to make him a W4 model, is he a monster? The Dwarf thing got very complex very quickly.

I think that he should count as Infantry, if for no other reason than Dwarves don't get any cavalry at all, so it fits.

Exactly-for some stuff like magic items clashes or whatever, then fine, dicing off is perhaps the only way to do it-but we can't seriously dice off every game hes in to see whether hes infantry or mounted! So (for our games at least) lets stick with infantry like we have been.

In fact, the dwarf runic system could probably do with some kinda clarification document, if only cos theres so many combinations (like the rune of fortitude example)-maybe if we all petition Jerv-lol

Colonel Fitzgerald
24-10-2008, 13:18
Here then is my letter to Jervis, and Jervis' letter to me. Not the answer I'd hoped for (as it's not an answer lol) but here it is as promised...

Gazak Blacktoof
24-10-2008, 13:27
Nope that's not much of answer at all. He probably does get a lot of physical and electronic mail though so its not suprising really.

logan054
24-10-2008, 16:48
i love how direct the answer and how i made me feel special he had taken the time to right that :rolleyes: I bet he sends that exact letter to everyone who has a rules a question "i cant be bothered to answer your question so just roll a dice and have this debate every game".