PDA

View Full Version : Issue that arised with VC magical lance and abysal terror.



Mireadur
19-10-2008, 22:52
So the other day my buddy charged my unit of swordmasters with his vampire mounted on an abysal terror and equiped with the dreadlance (lance. attacks with the lance will auto-hit) and the vampiric power ''redfury'' (each wound gives 1 more attack to the vampire).

So he charged my SM but i went 1st and killed the abyssal terror leaving the vampire on foot. Now im not sure if he would be able to use the lance (since hes not mounted anymore) and therefore wouldnt auto-hit, strange effect from ASF?.

I allowed him to use the lance eventhough he wasnt mounted anymore in the moment he was going to attack but im really curious about what are your opinions guys.


Thanks all.

theunwantedbeing
19-10-2008, 23:03
As there are no rules for using a lance while on foot, only while mounted.
The weapon is worthless and ceases to have any effect.

Your opponent will of course object, but then he would as he's just taken the dreadlance and red fury, one of the cheesiest combo's in the whole game. So his opinion can be ignored in any argument towards fairness.
Although without red fury..I'de probably allow him to keep using it.

Lord Inquisitor
19-10-2008, 23:25
A very good question, and one that hasn't really ever had a successful resolution. In rules terms "mounted only" is vague - obviously he doesn't get the +2 bonus to charging. In "common sense" terms this isn't clear-cut - any idea that a lance wouldn't be usuable when dismounted really doesn't apply to a inhumanly-strong undead monstrosity, it merely becomes a long spear. In addition, the magic weapon rules state that he HAS to use that weapon.

Ultimately, there is no clear answer. On one hand there is some weight to the idea that a lance cannot be used on foot. Equally, the vampire player has paid for a magic item - the item is clearly less useful on foot (no +2S), but it seems rather unfair that it should stop working completely.

Personally, I'm on the "he can use it" side of the fence, if only for the image of a blood dragon on foot spearing enemies on the lance and hauling them into the air so that they slowly slide down (like the beginning sequence of Bram Stoker's Dracula). That's just cool...

Gazak Blacktoof
19-10-2008, 23:47
My take on it is the same as theunwantedbeing's. There are no rules for using a lance whilst on foot so you can't use it if you become dismounted.

Harwammer
20-10-2008, 01:17
I don't have the armybook on hand, but here are some incoherent ramblings... i mean thoughts:

hand weapons are weapons which are not otherwise covered by the rules, i.e. lances when not mounted. Magic weapons ignore special rules for mundane items unless otherwise noted.

As such I suggest the lance can be used on foot, but will not gain mounted bonus (+2 str on charge) and probably does not benefit from hw+shield bonus either. It will retain any magic effects it has unless they are described as only working when mounted.

VC Doke
20-10-2008, 02:56
Magic weapons MUST be used, that is not debatable.

What is debatable is if the player can still use a lance while on foot. Of course, the character doesn't get the +2 str while charging, because a lance is only most effective mounted.

I figure to resolves this problem is to make a house rule before you play in order to prevent confusion. In the middle of the game, you should role a dice and a 4+ the vampire should use a hand weapon.

I admit my bias being a vampire player, but I would allow anyone that paid 60 points for a item to get at least have of the effects they paid for and not take away all of the benefits. Besides, when fighting elves even without the charging bonus the vampire still needs 2's to wound.

Bottom line: make a house rule until there is an official FAQ.

Lord Dan
20-10-2008, 03:16
As has been said, it cannot be used on foot. I don't care that the rulebook "doesn't say you can't", it more important doesn't say you can.

I really don't feel any additional sympathy simply because he paid a ton of points for the item. As Unwanted so aptly pointed out, he took a ridiculously cheesy combo and it didn't work out for him. It would be like if a tricked-out bloodthirster rolled double 6's for combat resolution or if a Slaan rolled double 1's on the miscast table.

I saw an Ogre Kindom's tyrant get killed by a random cannonball on the first turn of a game once. That guy I felt bad for.

Condottiere
20-10-2008, 07:14
1. Historically, shortened lances can be and have been used on foot.

2. Magic weapons must be used in preference to mundane weapons.

3. Normally, on foot, a horseman draws a hand weapon, or even a two handed one (that's why they have them).

There's nothing mentioned in the rules and no FAQ - I'd interpret that to mean that magic weapon trumps logic, and you have to use it on foot. A mundane lance gets dropped, and the horseman draws his hand weapon.

Braad
20-10-2008, 08:43
AFAIK, with magic weapons, the magic effects still apply. So you just wouldn't get +2 on the charge is what I would say.

Count Demandred
20-10-2008, 10:00
As has been said, it cannot be used on foot. I don't care that the rulebook "doesn't say you can't", it more important doesn't say you can.

I really don't feel any additional sympathy simply because he paid a ton of points for the item. As Unwanted so aptly pointed out, he took a ridiculously cheesy combo and it didn't work out for him. It would be like if a tricked-out bloodthirster rolled double 6's for combat resolution or if a Slaan rolled double 1's on the miscast table.
.


Your opponent will of course object, but then he would as he's just taken the dreadlance and red fury, one of the cheesiest combo's in the whole game. So his opinion can be ignored in any argument towards fairness.
Although without red fury..I'de probably allow him to keep using it.

This is an absolutely ridiculous arguement for the against.

The rules, powers and items are there to be combined, and thus exploited.*

Anyway, as there are no rules for or against using the Lance on foot I think logic should take precidence here. Of course someone would be able to use a Lance whilst on foot, it's still a spear-like weapon with a pointy end... Though, like others have said, the (+2 Strength) charge bonus should be void.

I'd treat it as if it was simple turned into a Magical Handweapon. Though I guess since there are no official rules it should be each to their own.



* (and it more than makes up for the fact Blood Dragons have to spend valuable 'bloodline' points to wear armour, not to mention the fact these 'Ancient' beings who have trained for centuries don't even get any WS upgrade)

Gazak Blacktoof
20-10-2008, 10:24
I'd treat it as if it was simple turned into a Magical Handweapon. Though I guess since there are no official rules it should be each to their own.

It certainly shouldn't be a magical "hand weapon". I might allow an opponent to use it as a magical weapon with no other properties whilst on foot but to me the rules indicate that its effectively unuseable on foot and the vampire should draw an alternative weapon- usually their default mundane hand weapon.

Braad
20-10-2008, 11:08
As Gazak says, treat it as what it is: a magic weapon.
If you treat it as a hand weapon, it should receive the hand weapon/shield AS bonus, and that's not true.

Count Demandred
20-10-2008, 12:52
It certainly shouldn't be a magical "hand weapon". I might allow an opponent to use it as a magical weapon with no other properties whilst on foot but to me the rules indicate that its effectively unuseable on foot and the vampire should draw an alternative weapon- usually their default mundane hand weapon.

A woops, I hadn't taken into account the Hand Weapon/Shield combination as Braad just pointed out...

Change Magic Hand Weapon to simply 'Magic Weapon.'

BEEGfrog
20-10-2008, 13:26
The rules for this are unambiguous. It is a lance, it is the first thing in its rule description. Lances can only be used by mounted characters, therefore he cannot use the lance. As the lance cannot be used, the rule requiring the use of magic weapons does not apply, as the magic weapon is not eligible for use. As his only eligible weapon is HW, he has to use that, if he has a shield he will also count the HW&Sh bonus for all wounds suffered after the mount died.

theunwantedbeing
20-10-2008, 13:38
Anyway, as there are no rules for or against using the Lance on foot I think logic should take precidence here. Of course someone would be able to use a Lance whilst on foot, it's still a spear-like weapon with a pointy end... Though, like others have said, the (+2 Strength) charge bonus should be void.

Yes, logic SHOULD take presecence. Logically, if there are no rules for a weapon used in a specific manner, you cannot use that weapon in that manner.
An example being a spear. There are no rules for using your spear as a javelin despite the 2 being effectively the same thing, a long pole with a pointy bit on the end.
So you may not use a spear as a javelin as there are no rules allowing you to do so.

However, your logic seems different to mine.
My logic does not allow you to throw that spear, your "logic" DOES.

So whoose makes more sense?

FigureFour
20-10-2008, 13:40
Lances can only be used by mounted characters, therefore he cannot use the lance. As the lance cannot be used, the rule requiring the use of magic weapons does not apply, as the magic weapon is not eligible for use.
This isn't an arguement, it's an assumption. Maybe the fact that he has to use the weapon trumps the fact that he can't?

Both seem to be equally valid conclusions.

Nighthawke
20-10-2008, 13:46
so he has to use the weapon?
problem is the weapons rules state he cant
so id say he has to use his regualer weapon and not the lancejust make a list the rules go in
so it starts with a character must use his magical weapon
next on the list we look at the weapon, which is a lance and its rule is that it can only be used mounted, so its rule takes presidence

Drow__Warrior
20-10-2008, 16:13
This is very simple


BRB pg. 56 "Lances (mounted only)"


As soon as he drops on foot, no more lance, End of discussion. Thats what happens when you put a good character on a stupid mount.

SolarHammer
20-10-2008, 16:29
Don't put characters with magic lances on animals you expect might die.

he's just taken the dreadlance and red fury, one of the cheesiest combo's in the whole game. So his opinion can be ignored in any argument towards fairness.
Although without red fury..I'de probably allow him to keep using it.
That seems incredibly asinine to me.

slasher
20-10-2008, 16:29
Question is - does the magic weapon entry say name - LANCE or have the comment +2 stregth on charge if mounted? Because if it doesn't then the magic weapon can be used on foot with all its rules. If its says Lance in the discription then it may only be used if mounted (as per the BRB) if it says +2 strength if mounted then it can (and MUST) be used after the mount is killed.

Now what makes me say that - Lizardmen FAQ, charcter scar vet has a magic spear that gives him +1 strenght on the charge even if on foot as thats what the discription says. Also the Brettionian book states for all lances +2 strenght on the charge when mounted. disclamer......Ok I know these are written for the last edition.

kramplarv
20-10-2008, 16:48
In rule book it says that a lance is used exclusivly by mounted warriors.
But even though, the VC description is this;

"Dreadlance.
lance. All attacks witht his lance hits automatically"

But the magic weapon rule overule any other rules the weapon has. Unless otherwise notified. and the dreadlance has "otherwise notified" namely. "lance."

Dreadlance is a magical weapon with lance rules.
therefore it is treated as a lance in the sense of rules, according to both the magic section of the rulebook regarding Magic Weapons, and in it's own description.

ergo: He loses the dreadlance when the abyssal terror dies.

End of discussion.

Lord Inquisitor
20-10-2008, 17:07
I love the way people put "end of discussion" at the end of their posts. It's so hopeful. We've been here before, after seven pages the two groups were firmly entrenched as tends to happen where there is no clear answer.

The rules are simply vague on this subject. Noone's disagreeing that the dreadlance doesn't get the lance strength bonus while on foot. That the weapon is permanently lost altogether is another matter.

Until (or rather if) a FAQ is released on this matter, it is going to be a bone of contention. You need to discuss it with your opponent before the game, or roll a D6 for it during. Ultimately, the simplest thing is just to allow the vampire the benefit - after all, points have been paid for it, and he still loses the lance bonus - and the abyssal terror!

Emeraldw
20-10-2008, 17:10
In rule book it says that a lance is used exclusivly by mounted warriors.
But even though, the VC description is this;

"Dreadlance.
lance. All attacks witht his lance hits automatically"

But the magic weapon rule overule any other rules the weapon has. Unless otherwise notified. and the dreadlance has "otherwise notified" namely. "lance."

Dreadlance is a magical weapon with lance rules.
therefore it is treated as a lance in the sense of rules, according to both the magic section of the rulebook regarding Magic Weapons, and in it's own description.

ergo: He loses the dreadlance when the abyssal terror dies.

End of discussion.

While it is quick to jump to that conclusion, I feel that it is not entirely complete.

Lances can only be used when the character is mounted. True. However, magic weapons take precedence over anything mundane. True.

There are no rules for using lances on foot because largely, the mount is 1 wound and there isn't any problem. But in this case, there is a monster mount and he can be killed first. I personally find this to be a unique situation that can't be solved by simply saying "lances are only used when mounted, he must drop it."

There are no rules for using a lance on foot, likely because it is a strange and unique situation not accounted for. I checked both the Vampire counts and High Elf FAQs for anything of an answer and didn't find one.

I personally would allow the use of the lance as a weapon as there is nothing in the rules either way about using lances on foot.

Of course realistically he might drop the lance or knowing how powerful the lance is, the vampire (with super natural strength after all) could certainly wield such a weapon quite effectively.

I say house rule it.

FigureFour
20-10-2008, 17:29
Lances can only be used when the character is mounted.

I think this is a pretty big assumption that a lot of people have been making. It could just as easily mean that the Lance RULES cannot be used by a character on foot. As far as I know, there isn't any rule that restricts which weapon a character can be equipped with or use (excepting the one saying that they have to use magic weapons if they have them) but there are rules governing when the special rules of a weapon apply.

The real question here is "Does the 'mounted only' clause of the lance rules apply only to the lance rules or does it extend to any associated rules the weapon may possess?"

And since there's no clear answer (adding "end of discussion" to the end of your opinion makes you look like a jerk, but it doesn't actually give a clear answer) the only real discussion here is "SHOULD the 'mounted only' clause of the lance rules apply only to the lance rules or should it extend to any associated rules the weapon may possess?"

In short, house rule it.

Lord Dan
20-10-2008, 17:32
This is an absolutely ridiculous arguement for the against.

The rules, powers and items are there to be combined, and thus exploited.*

Anyway, as there are no rules for or against using the Lance on foot I think logic should take precidence here. Of course someone would be able to use a Lance whilst on foot, it's still a spear-like weapon with a pointy end... Though, like others have said, the (+2 Strength) charge bonus should be void.

I'd treat it as if it was simple turned into a Magical Handweapon. Though I guess since there are no official rules it should be each to their own.



* (and it more than makes up for the fact Blood Dragons have to spend valuable 'bloodline' points to wear armour, not to mention the fact these 'Ancient' beings who have trained for centuries don't even get any WS upgrade)

No, if there are no rules for or against soomething you don't simply "assume" rules for it because you like those better. If there aren't rules for something, you can't use it. Simple.

What I find ridiculous is the fact that the basis for your argument isn't based on anything at all. You said yourself that there are no rules for using a lance on foot, so how on earth could you "logically" come up with the solution that it should be used as a magic hand weapon?

"The rules, powers and items are there to be combined, and thus exploited." Interesting. Here's a question for you:

Banks exist, and people have robbed them in the past. Would you rob a bank? Probably not, out of fear of punishment. Now take away the punishment: would you rob the bank?

Doing anything "because you can" without fear of punishment comes down to a similar decision based entirely on moral character. I'm sure people are going to say "you can't compare robbing a bank to making a cheesy list", however it's not the magnitude of the issues I'm comparing, but rather the desicion making process involved.

Psychology aside, vampires have 100 extra points to essentially spend on magic abilities. The fact that you need to use these to get armor (consequently making them even more powerful) is hardly something you're going to get any sympathy from here.

BEEGfrog
20-10-2008, 17:58
The specific item rule, which should overule the general magic item rule, says the item is a lance, therefore the lance rules apply including only usable by mounted.

In which way does only usable mounted not specify how it can be used on foot - i.e. it can't be used on foot, because when you are on foot you are not mounted and when you are not mounted you can't use a lance.

Having sorted out whether or not you can use a lance (you can't, if the people with short attention spans have already lost track...) the issue then is what can you use?

There are three options 1) the lance because it is a magic weapon and you have to use magic weapons; 2) HW because everyone has them and the magic item is ineligible for use and therefore not an option and the need to use it instead of a mundane weapon does not apply (We still are remembering that lances can't be used on foot); or 3) the model was equipped with an additional mundane weapon.

So what are the effects:
1) you have to use the lance, but you can't use it as it is ineligible - so you get no attacks as you have no eligible weapon.
2) you attack with HW and get HW&Sh bonus as you are on foot
3) you attack with the additional mundane weapon with all of its special rules, if any.

SolarHammer
20-10-2008, 18:02
I think this is a pretty big assumption that a lot of people have been making. It could just as easily mean that the Lance RULES cannot be used by a character on foot. As far as I know, there isn't any rule that restricts which weapon a character can be equipped with or use (excepting the one saying that they have to use magic weapons if they have them) but there are rules governing when the special rules of a weapon apply.

How the heck do you propose to "use" something in some way other than applying the rules of the "item" in a wargame which exists only as the interaction of rules tied to physical objects on a tabletop?

FigureFour
20-10-2008, 18:08
How the heck do you propose to "use" something in some way other than applying the rules of the "item" in a wargame which exists only as the interaction of rules tied to physical objects on a tabletop?

Did you finish reading my post? My point is that since the lance rules are a discrete item seperate from (but contained within) the Dreadlance rules, that the "mounted only" clause could only prevent you from using the lance rules, not the weapon.

Next time, get to the second paragraph before you decide to get enraged.

SolarHammer
20-10-2008, 18:23
Enraged? Methinks you are reading too much into my post...

I am definitely perplexed and confused by your suggestion. It would certainly take more than that to make me angry (but apparently not you judging by your PM that you sent me).

If Lances can only be used while mounted (which all indications point to), then I don't know how you intend to separate the bonuses granted by its very nature of existence as a lance from the bonuses granted by its existence as a magic item.

The rule for lances in the book is simply "+2 Strength bonus when charging" so if you are going to let the character keep "using" the weapon to gain the magic effects there is no reason to not let him gain the mundane effects. Either the character cannot "use" the lance at all, precluding both the magic or mundane effects, or he must "use" the weapon and gain both the mundane and magic effects.

There is simply nothing in the rules of Lances that would restrict the bonus from applying if you allow the model to continue using it when not mounted. Any time you "use" a lance, you get +2S on the charge. Full stop according to thhe rules. You don't get +2S on the charge when mounted. For the restriction "MOUNTED ONLY" to make any sense, it therefore requires that the weapon only be usable while mounted, as the rules on pages 54-57 describe the rules for "using" the weapons and not the rules for equipping models with the weapons at the beginning of the game.

kramplarv
20-10-2008, 18:34
But the rules for MAgic Weapons specifically says ths; quote from rules of magic items

"Magic Weapons always ignore ANY special rules that apply to an ordinary weapon of the same type unless otherwise specified in the description of the weapon"

And the dreadlance has one specified description.. namely; Lance. according to the rule governing magic weapons we identify the dreadlance as a lance.

then We move to the weapon section and looking for the rules of lances. Rememeber, unless it is stated in the rules, we can't use it. (it is not stated in the rules that i win on 2+ with re-roll. Therefor I Do." The rules are there to specify what you can do. not what you can't do.

so, anyway. Lance. the description of lance says "Lances: (Mounted only)
A lance is a heavier, longer version of the spear, used exclusivly by mounted warriors"

so, this section of the rulebook says on not one but TWICE that lances are only ussable by mounted warriors. Not usable by warriors who once were mounted. BUt they are mounted.

now, adding this together we have;

a magic weapon who by he magic weapon rules are to be treated as a normal weapon of its type. The type is Lance. The rule for Lances are that they ma NOT be used by models on foot.

so, By using the rules we have reached a conclusion, entirely based by rules. (Not that I believe a fightervampire would let go of his superlance because he fell off a horse... But that's logic,. not rules.)

So, How can this be debatable?

the rule who says magic item MUST be used is covered is changed IF the weapon has another note. As... Lance, Spear, Great weapon etc in their description, then it is to be treated normally despite it's magic effects.

Lord Inquisitor
20-10-2008, 18:38
The key question here is as follows:

Does "mounted only" mean the weapon is literally unusable when dismounted, or does it mean the weapon's benefits are only applicable when mounted?

SolarHammer
20-10-2008, 18:45
The restriction is not found within the "Rules:" section of any of the weapons, but rather the headings.

If it said "Rules: +2 Strength bonus when charging while mounted" then you would have an argument for being able to keep using the weapon but not applying the benefit.

Since instead it only says "Rules: +2 Strength bonus when charging" then that means that any time you use the weapon, you will gain the benefit.

Therefore for the two words "MOUNTED ONLY" in the title to have any effect, the item must only be usable by mounted models.

FigureFour
20-10-2008, 18:47
Enraged? Methinks you are reading too much into my post...
Sorry, that may just be me projecting my impression of you onto your posts. You seem to be a pretty angry guy where Warhammer is concerend.


I am definitely perplexed and confused by your suggestion. It would certainly take more than that to make me angry (but apparently not you judging by your PM that you sent me).
Fair enough, but the PM has nothing to do with this post. I sent it before I read this.


If Lances can only be used while mounted (which all indications point to), then I don't know how you intend to separate the bonuses granted by its very nature of existence as a lance from the bonuses granted by its existence as a magic item.

As you already said, it doesn't exist as a lance. There is no lance. There is a set of rules in a game. The rules are seperate already. They are two seperate sentences, and frequently a magic item has rules with a clause that does not effect other parts of it's own rules. Confusing I know, but such is the nature of the Warhammer rules.


The rule for lances in the book is simply "+2 Strength bonus when charging" so if you are going to let the character keep "using" the weapon to gain the magic effects there is no reason to not let him gain the mundane effects.
Except for the fact that it specifies that the rules for lances only apply to a mounted model. The rules don't state "Any weapon with this rule cannot be used by a model on foot." They might imply that. Then again they might not.


Either the character cannot "use" the lance at all, precluding both the magic or mundane effects, or he must "use" the weapon and gain both the mundane and magic effects.

Or he can use the Dreadlance, since nothing precludes its use, but he cannot use the rules for a lance, becuase they don't apply while on foot.

I could repeat myself again, but the attitude here seems to be "I have an opinion therefore no other opinion can be valid," so it's probably futile.

Lord Inquisitor seems to have understood my point, so at least I can feel confident that I'm on the "sane people" side of the discussion, even if I'm not with the "right people".

SolarHammer
20-10-2008, 18:57
The "Rules" for the item grant +2 Strength when charging. That's all. The rules have no other requirements, prerequisites or conditions that need to be met.

It's a 1 step check:
Is the model using a lance? --> If yes, +2 Strength when charging.

Because the rules are written that way, it means that the restriction in the title "Lance (MOUNTED ONLY)" need necessarily apply as a restriction against USING the item.

Every time you use a lance, if you charge you get +2S. If you are arguing to use the weapon, you are arguing to get +2S on the charge. There is no reasonable way to interpret the title and the rules together any other way.

BEEGfrog
20-10-2008, 18:59
The key question here is as follows:

Does "mounted only" mean the weapon is literally unusable when dismounted, or does it mean the weapon's benefits are only applicable when mounted?

Weapons that can be used both mounted and on foot either say so or have two entries, one for each. Lance says "mounted only", therefore literally unusable when not mounted.

The appeals to history or common sense have the same weight here as in other discussions where the standard is "Rules As Written", i.e. to tip the balance when it is unclear. But the "mounted only" and alternative mounted/infantry entries for other weapons are as clear as GW ever get - RAW are you can't use a lance on foot.

Lord Inquisitor
20-10-2008, 19:21
Spears have two sets of bonuses/penalties that apply when mounted or on foot. Clearly the mounted benefit doesn't apply when on foot.

Equally, you can look at it this way: the mounted benefit for lances doesn't apply when not mounted (the benefit applies to "mounted only"). That dismounted characters lose the lance altogether is extrapolation. That the character loses any non-lance benefits from the magic weapon doesn't seem to necessarily follow.

I get your argument (really, I do!), and I'm not at all 100% certain that you're not right either. There isn't really a "common sense" answer to guide us (really it isn't any more unrealistic that a monstrously strong vampire couldn't use a lance just as effectively if not more so on foot than he could when mounted and not charging). From a "game balance" perspective, it seems unreasonable that such an expensive item should suddenly become totally useless. Finally, as we can see, RAW is at best unclear. Certainly lances are intended to be used when mounted, certainly they only provide their bonus when mounted, but that dismounted characters lose them altogether? I'm not so sure.

SolarHammer
20-10-2008, 19:26
Then of course there is the precedent set by the following:

Q. If Porko’s Pigstikka is bought for a Wywern mounted Warlord,
can he still use it if the steed dies?

A. No.
S. Anthony Reynolds - Warhammer Design Team (Online Q&A
on the Games Workshop Warhammer Forum)

Ignore it if you like as it's not directly applicable to the issue at hand, but it should lend enough weight for those "not at all 100% certain" that we are not right, that our position is indeed correct.

Porko's Pigstikka says "Mounted models only" which is pretty close to the lance description of "MOUNTED ONLY."

Mireadur
20-10-2008, 19:29
Thanks for the answers guys, its good to see my reasoning was correct after all.

g0ddy
20-10-2008, 20:23
The issue of contention is between those who fundamentally disagree on the intent of what "(Mounted Only)" is supposed to me... It is in some ways a failing of the English language that leads some people to assume that it means "May only be used when/while/if mounted at the present time", the rest of this assumption is most likely supported by ones knowledge of how a "lance" is logically wielded - and vice versa - illogically wielded when on foot.

The other side of this argument is that since it doesn't specifically list rules for its use "when/while/if NOT mounted at the present time" that we can assume that it provides no specific benefit or encumbrance - it just is what it is... a lance, a long spear-like weapon being wielded in a illogical way by some suitably unfortunate soul/person/vampire.

Now, many of you will notice that - for example, a great weapon, has two entries one listed as "On Foot" and another listed as "Mounted". If "Mounted Only" does truly mean what is proposed above, why does the great weapon entry not also use such terminology. Again we can easily default back to the first assumption, or we can propose that the word "Only" is being used as an explanation as to why there is no other entry - something that was logically/intentionally left out.

In the end the rules are UNCLEAR, if they truly wanted us to ALL believe that the intent was for a lance (whatever its magical properties or otherwise) to be unusable (in whatever form may be sensible) they should have clearly spelled it out with a separate entry entitled "Lance (Foot)". Unfortunately this is not the case and we have been left with a set of vague, possibly/probably intentionally open ended rules that have aligned in such a way to cause this problem.

At the end of the day... I can think of things that already quite clearly/legally occur in the game that are considerably more ridiculous than a enraged/deranged vampire whom has suddenly found himself mountless and is now attempting in some illogical way to fend off his attackers with what weapon he has at hand - his lance.

~ zilla

g0ddy
20-10-2008, 20:27
Solar : Does Porkos Pigstikka say "Spear" in its rules?

~zilla

SolarHammer
20-10-2008, 20:33
No, but the statement "Mounted models only" that Porko's Pigstikka has is functionally indistinguishable from the phrase "MOUNTED ONLY" that lances have. You can substitute "Lance," in the VC items with the term "MOUNTED ONLY" if it makes the comparison easier for you.

That's why I said it isn't perfectly applicable, but I think it's certainly on point.

Gazak Blacktoof
20-10-2008, 20:40
@g0ddy

Are you actually suggesting that there should be a rule for lance (foot) that says "you can't use a lance whilst not mounted"? I fail to see how this isn't already covered by lances (mounted only).

Ignoring the rule "mounted only" is just as bad as ignoring the heading "missile weapons" on the facing page. The repeater crossbow doesn't have a profile that tells you that it can't be used in close combat.

Mireadur
20-10-2008, 20:47
piggstika says it is a spear but only for mounted models. i.e. you gain +1S on the charge but can only use it if you are mounted.

EDIT: actually im not sure about the exact wording on the weapon in the 7th edition book (eventhough i played with O&G this sunday!) sorry for a maybe inexact info

Drow__Warrior
20-10-2008, 21:47
This thread needs to end.

(MOUNTED ONLY)

In the description for a lance option in every army book:
Character may choose.. A, B, C or lance (if mounted)

If he's on foot against me, he's not auto-hitting, I'm not rolling a die, and I'm not consulting a judge.

I'm simply losing all respect for you as you sit there and try and argue this.

BEEGfrog
20-10-2008, 23:53
This thread needs to end.

(MOUNTED ONLY)

In the description for a lance option in every army book:
Character may choose.. A, B, C or lance (if mounted)

If he's on foot against me, he's not auto-hitting, I'm not rolling a die, and I'm not consulting a judge.

I'm simply losing all respect for you as you sit there and try and argue this.

I agree with you - there are none so blind as will not see; you can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink...

The evidence has been presented and the case proven, there is no point in further argument.

DV8
21-10-2008, 00:11
I think the points mentioned on the first page should have ended the argument.

At the end of the day, the (magic) weapon in question is a lance. It's a progressive chain of reasoning.

I charge into combat. I have a lance. Am I mounted? Yes, I can use the lance. Oh look, I have magical stats on my lance. Win.

I charge into combat. I have a lance. Am I mounted? No. Well fiddlesticks, I have to use my mundane sword. Lose.

It's the risk you take for taking such a powerful, albiet expensive, combo.


DV8

Vishok
21-10-2008, 00:30
I've found that this board is very liberal about the application of certain rules. The common ground on most rules questions is the 'trump' to logic...usually by applying half the rules and ignoring anything that precludes the matter in question. I don't know why.

In this case, it goes as follows, as has already been pointed out.

He must use the Magic Weapon. However, he is not able. It is MOUNTED ONLY.

You cannot say "No +2 S but you can use your lance." That's only applying half the rules in question and blindly overlooking the matter simply to not cause an issue. The fact is that none of the rules for the lance apply. The weapon being magical doesn't trump what type it is.

He draws his hand weapon. The lance is useless, magic or not.

KharnTheBetrayer01
21-10-2008, 00:37
I have a house rule for just this kind of occasion.

Its the "Whats awesome?" rule.

Is a vampire running around with an oversized stake, taking revenge for his dead relatives by skewering hapless innocents an awesome image? yes.

Let him keep the damn ability next time.

SolarHammer
21-10-2008, 00:50
That's great. And if someone disagrees?

marv335
21-10-2008, 00:53
I think the idea of a vampire running around unable to hurt things with his oversized stake because his horse is dead is awesome.

So the "What's awesome" rule is hopeless in this case.
Which brings us back to the actual rules.

You only get to use a lance if you're mounted.
If you're not mounted you can't use the dreadlance.
the magic weapon arguement doesn't hold water for me, what about characters with magic bows?
that's a magic weapon, I don't have to use it in melee.

I'm going with No on this one.

Lord Dan
21-10-2008, 01:19
So the vampire can still use it on foot, forfeiting the +2 S on the charge whilst retaining its other magical properties? Sounds like wishful thinking. As Solar mentioned, "mounted only" has to refer to when the weapon can be used, as for it to refer to the application of its effects would be redundant.

If you want to play this as a house rule, fine. But I'd better see a bunch of dismounted guys fighting with mundane lances as well. ;)

Lord Inquisitor
21-10-2008, 02:13
I have to say I agree with Kharn (a S5 vampire with a lance and the talisman of we-stole-it-off-the-Lizardmen that charges 18" into an enemy unit is likely to hurt even without a mount!) but I'll certainly take the Pigstikka as precidence.

Lordmonkey
21-10-2008, 12:35
First of all, you do not divide the properties of a magic weapon. The dreadlance is a lance, and therefore grants all benefits of a lance. It is also magical, and allows the wielder to auto-hit. The +2str bonus from being a lance applies when charging. It has nothing to do with being mounted or not mounted.

Since the vampire has been unmounted, and since lances cannot be used when the character is not mounted, the magic weapon can no longer be used because it is a lance.

Just to throw extra complications into the mix...

The rules state that models must always use the same weapon for each round of combat. Since the vampire must declare at the start of the round, before attacks, that he intends to use the dreadlance, (which can no longer be used) does this imply that the vampire cannot fight at all?
There is no rule, in either the brb or the VC army book AFAIK, (but please correct me if I am wrong) that states you are allowed to change weapons should the one you declared to use becomes unuseable. So he cannot use the weapon he has chosen to wield, but he is not allowed to switch to another weapon either?

KharnTheBetrayer01
21-10-2008, 13:13
For me it doesn't much matter if someone disagrees. I don't use lances in my army, preferring great weapons. so I'd be ruling for the opponents units anyway.

You want precedence, play Samurai Warriors 2 and choose Nagamasa Azai. Lance wielding character, on foot. Fantastic character all round.

If we're being serious, dull, and going purely RAW, then lets consider it this way instead;
To use a lance you have to charge while mounted, and it only affects in the first turn. That shows that the magical properties of the lance only come into effect when used as a lance, rather than an oversized club, and so we can safely assume that its takes velocity for a Lance to be used, magical or not.

The slowest steed you can have is...M7? M6? If the vampire can move that fast without a steed, then allow the effect. If not, then don't allow it.

Any arguments with that?

Condottiere
21-10-2008, 13:29
There is no rule, in either the brb or the VC army book AFAIK, (but please correct me if I am wrong) that states you are allowed to change weapons should the one you declared to use becomes unuseable. So he cannot use the weapon he has chosen to wield, but he is not allowed to switch to another weapon either?I think it is implied, if not stated, that all models have hand weapons. It is also understood that you cannot use ranged weapons in melee, unless expressly allowed in their descriptions (ie pistols). This means a magical longbow cannot be used in hth combat, even if it is magical.

So the way I see it, a mundane lance cannot be used while on foot (at least in Warhammer). The problem is that magic weapons are required to be employed in preference to mundane ones. If it can be argued that once the rider is dismounted, lances are absolutely unwieldy, then there can be no argument and another weapon must be used.

But other than that, I'd say that the rules for magic weapon takes precedence.

Mireadur
21-10-2008, 20:17
Condo, i think you missed the part in the magic weapons rule where it specifies that magical weapons with specific mundane weapon rules follow such rules over the ones for magic weapons (such is the case of this item).

WLBjork
22-10-2008, 07:01
Which brings us back to the fact that we don't know exactly what GW means by "Mounted Only".

Do they mean that the weapon can only be used when mounted?

Or do they mean that the weapon has specific properties when mounted (i.e. +2S on the charge in the case of the lance), but on foot is simply a weapon (not a hand weapon)?

I'm of the opinion the second is the case.

Lordsaradain
22-10-2008, 07:22
You will only get the +2S bonus when charging AND mounted, but there are no rules as far as I can see which prevents your vampire from continuing to poke the enemy with his magic lance while he is fighting unmounted. Refering to logic is silly, the warhammer rules in general have very little of it.

Latro
22-10-2008, 07:53
I might regret this later (or even sooner), but I'll add my bit anyway:

AFAIK the chart with all the normal weapon stats on it only lists the effects of all the weapons when used under certain conditions. The armybooks determine if a model is allowed to have and use a certain weapon. If they can have it, they can use it and the chart determines what the effect will be.

If you end up on foot with a lance there will be no effect because it doesn't meet the conditions of the chart ... it would even be a disadvantage because it prevents the model from claiming effects other weapons can grant while on foot. That's why a lance is a cavalry weapon, only used by mounted models because they're the only ones that get a benefit instead of a penalty.

(Please note that it says that they're "used exclusively by" ... and not that models on foot can't use them. A subtle difference when it comes to rules.)

Now we run into a magic weapon that is a lance with an interesting side-effect not linked to it being a lance. Normally there's no reason for models using a lance on foot, hence it doesn't happen. Now there is, hence it will happen ... and I haven't seen anything yet that prevents a model on foot using a lance.


:cool:

(Note: Still undecided on this, but leaning towards allowing it.)

Drow__Warrior
22-10-2008, 08:36
Latro: "and I haven't seen anything yet that prevents a model on foot using a lance"



Ya know, except that part in parenthesis that says (MOUNTED ONLY)

But we just ignore stuff in the warhammer rulebook when we feel like it.

Latro
22-10-2008, 08:41
Latro: "and I haven't seen anything yet that prevents a model on foot using a lance"



Ya know, except that part in parenthesis that says (MOUNTED ONLY)

But we just ignore stuff in the warhammer rulebook when we feel like it.

If you had bothered to read my post you would have seen that I did take that into account. I also explained why I think that doesn't apply in this situation.

On a side-note: sarcasm is best used on the general board, it doesn't really add anything useful to rule discussions.


:cool:

BEEGfrog
22-10-2008, 11:39
If you had bothered to read my post you would have seen that I did take that into account. I also explained why I think that doesn't apply in this situation.

On a side-note: sarcasm is best used on the general board, it doesn't really add anything useful to rule discussions.


:cool:

Problem is when people interpret "mounted only" as "usable on foot" then sarcasm is all that is left after logic, reason and common sense have failed.

Mireadur
22-10-2008, 12:28
Im just amazed at the way some interprete ruling...:eyebrows:

I believe the important point of this is that while these lances have a full cost for the magic ability they are giving (auto-hit is worth 60 points) thus allowing characters to always use the weapon not only in the charge round, this doesnt enter in conflict with the primary condition= being mounted.

Anyway i wouldnt be surprised that if GW had to FAQ this they would maybe allow using the lances while on foot but not gaining the +2S on the charge.. Theres a small and twisted hole in the ruling after all which is a complete responsibility of the game designers with their damn cheesy itemization.

SolarHammer
22-10-2008, 13:44
Problem is when people interpret "mounted only" as "usable on foot" then sarcasm is all that is left after logic, reason and common sense have failed.

Welcome to Warseer. We normally have you check those at the door.

VC Doke
22-10-2008, 14:16
1) Roll a dice during the game when something like this comes up. "4+" = he uses the damn lance even on foot. Otherwise he uses a hand weapon.

2) Make a house rule before you play so there's an expectation for the Vampire player when he makes his list.

3) Warhammer is a complicated game and doesn't have a rule for every single instance you come up with. Until they come out with a FAQ, please refer to numbers 1 and 2.

That is all...

kramplarv
22-10-2008, 16:25
but why should we have to roll 4+ when we can follow the rules? when we follow the rules he can't use the lance.

very simple. a 4+situation would be if frenzied unts could charge if their screens charge to. that is an unclear situation, but this aint unclear. it is very clear. :)

Latro
22-10-2008, 17:22
Problem is when people interpret "mounted only" as "usable on foot" then sarcasm is all that is left after logic, reason and common sense have failed.

Nope, the difference is that you interpret that part as not being able to have/hold it while I interpret it as not being able to claim the effects listed ... for better or for worse. Had it been a regular lance he would be stuck with that clumsy thing also (and not claim an extra bonus to his safe for suddenly going hand weapon + shield because it would be better).


:cool:

Lord Dan
22-10-2008, 17:41
Nope, the difference is that you interpret that part as not being able to have/hold it while I interpret it as not being able to claim the effects listed ... for better or for worse. Had it been a regular lance he would be stuck with that clumsy thing also (and not claim an extra bonus to his safe for suddenly going hand weapon + shield because it would be better).


:cool:

So it's only coincidence that the way you interpret the rules just happens to be the most convenient for you?

EDIT: And the idea that you can't decide to pull out your hand weapon with a mundane lance is absolutely absurd. Would you tell your spear/ shield armed opponent he couldn't use his hand weapons, as well?

Drow__Warrior
22-10-2008, 18:38
On a side-note: sarcasm is best used on the general board, it doesn't really add anything useful to rule discussions.


Not so. Once we abandon the rule book, sarcasm is really the only thing that makes this thread worth reading. Because c'mon, who doesn't enjoy a chuckle at the expense of someone acting oblivious.

Again, it says "Mounted Only"

Not, "Mounted only if It doesn't bother me"

Mireadur
22-10-2008, 18:51
Nope, the difference is that you interpret that part as not being able to have/hold it while I interpret it as not being able to claim the effects listed ... for better or for worse. Had it been a regular lance he would be stuck with that clumsy thing also (and not claim an extra bonus to his safe for suddenly going hand weapon + shield because it would be better).


:cool:

Do you realize mundane lances are only used in the charge round (and of course if you charged riding something)? AFter that all models switch to their hand weapons. Of course this isnt the case with magical weapons with a special ability for which you are paying full points (ie: the lance we are talking about). However the extra bonus for no cost you get by keeping the mundane effects from the weapon (be it 2handed or lance as in this case) also force you to their disadvantages (you will hit last with a 2hander and will only be able to wield a lance if mounted).

It appears to me that some people think a magical weapon in which profile appears (2 hand weapon) think that they wouldnt be striking in the last place just because the weapon is magical (while wanting to keep a free points +2STR?). Also if you took such magical 2hander while on horseback you can be sure you would only get a +1STR.

theunwantedbeing
22-10-2008, 18:58
Actually Miradeur...the lance IS used after the charge.
The thing is it offer no more use than a hand weapon does.

In the case of a character losing his mount he then reverts to his hand weapon when he would otherwise use his lance (or his magic weapon in the case of a bretonnian with a lance and magical weapon).

Mireadur
22-10-2008, 19:12
About the bretonnian specify ruling about lances and magical weapons i dont believe this was meant as ''only bretonnia'' but rather Anthony Reynolds felt a more in dept explanation was needed for the armybook since bretonnia is an army which speficically focuses in this kind of setup. Anyway this is just a feeling based in common sense.

About mundane lances being used in subsequent rounds i think you are right, theres no actual mention of switching to hand weapon after the 1st round, however i think (and just think) this was made for the sake of simplification. (again just based in common sense)

About the issue we are discussing, i just realized that if instead the OP i had posted my buddy was carrying a 2hand weapon i bet the people now saying the lance can still be used would be saying the vampire would attack on +2 STR since he wasnt mounted anymore in the moment he attacked :p

kramplarv
22-10-2008, 19:20
yeah. If the vampire had a great weapon and riding a abyssal terror he has +1 Strength. When the terror is dead, he has +2 Strenggth.

If lance could be used on foot, it would have had a rule like "Lance (mounted)" and "Lance (on foot) as spears and Great Weapons have.

and regarding the knight with lance switching to hand weapons. they don't. they use their lances all the game. Unless they become unmounted infantry models.

Latro
22-10-2008, 20:48
So it's only coincidence that the way you interpret the rules just happens to be the most convenient for you?

EDIT: And the idea that you can't decide to pull out your hand weapon with a mundane lance is absolutely absurd. Would you tell your spear/ shield armed opponent he couldn't use his hand weapons, as well?

1. Uhm ... how exactly is defending the minority view when I have no stake in this at all (and not planning to take that magical lance ever anyway) in any way convenient for me? You're mixing things up a bit: I have this opinion because I interpret that rule this way, not the other way around.

2. Uhm ... I said that if a mounted model with a regular lance ends up de-mounted after a round he can't drop the lance and go on fighting the same combat with hand weapon + shield (for a better save) either (with my reasoning). Nothing to do with spears and shields ...


:cool:

Latro
22-10-2008, 20:52
If lance could be used on foot, it would have had a rule like "Lance (mounted)" and "Lance (on foot) as spears and Great Weapons have.


Both spears and great weapons still have certain effects when used on foot, which is why they need to have a rule. If you end up using a lance on foot (which can only happen due to some bad luck) there would be no effect at all ... so no rule for that.


:cool:

Drow__Warrior
22-10-2008, 21:04
OR, there is no rule for it because it's ILLEGAL!

I think we should make a whole 2nd rulebook containing only circumstances that can't LEGALLY come up.

Mireadur
22-10-2008, 21:06
Both spears and great weapons still have certain effects when used on foot, which is why they need to have a rule. If you end up using a lance on foot (which can only happen due to some bad luck) there would be no effect at all ... so no rule for that.


:cool:

This comment was just twisted. No rule because it cant be used.... Zzzzz

Jagosaja
22-10-2008, 21:15
If you would please refer to the page 121 of the rulebook:

"A character that has a magic close combat weapon cannot use any other close combat weapons, although it can carry a shield as normal."

So, if a Vampire Lord has a magic lance, he cannot use a hand weapon, EVER!!! That is unless that magic lance is destroyed by some means, but otherwise he must use it. There is no reference about mounted or not, so the only thing you can claim is that he will have to fight with bare hands, which I don't think can be taken into account.

It also says the following:

"Magic weapons ignore any special rules that apply to an ordinary weapon of the same type unless otherwise specified in the description of the weapon."

Now, if you refer to the page 56 of the rulebook, it does say "mounted only" next to the lances, but it does not mean you can use it only when mounted, but the following rules apply when mounted only. All the rules where it is stated just "mounted", have their "infantry" counterpart, and that is because each version of those has special rules. Infantry version of lances simply has no special rules for it. That is why it is stated "mounted only". If you stick to the exact words, it would mean that monsters that use great weapons have no benefit from them as there is no version for great weapons that states "monsters", just "infantry" and "mounted". Do we have any other version of unit that uses throwing stars/knives and which is not infantry? Why does it not state there "infantry only"? There is your logic. So, non-mounted units can use lances, but then they follow no special rules. They are not hand weapons when dismounted, as hand weapons follow their own special rules.

theunwantedbeing
22-10-2008, 21:23
Page 55 "infantry(and other models on foot)"

A lance cant be used on foot.

Jagosaja
22-10-2008, 21:30
Page 55 "infantry(and other models on foot)"

A lance cant be used on foot.

OK, you are right on that one, so I take that back. But what about other arguments? One wrong does not cancel all the rights.

Latro
22-10-2008, 21:55
Even if you're not interested in debating the weapon rule (as some seem to be), it's still a toss-up between:


A. Follow the weapon rule, break the magic weapon rule.

or

B. Break the weapon rule, follow the magic weapon rule.


Is there anything besides personal preference that points to what rule should be broken and what not? No, distaste for beardy combo's involving expensive magical items and certain vampiric bloodpowers does not count.


:cool:

kramplarv
22-10-2008, 23:20
I don't get the problem?

dreadlance. a lance with magical power. follows lance rules.

cant use lance? cant use dreadlance.

Jagosaja
23-10-2008, 05:04
Can't use lance - MUST use magic weapon, no other weapon at all. DAMN! What to do?

Condottiere
23-10-2008, 05:48
It's one of those weird situations, where the rules contradict each other - which rule does GW indicate that we follow?

WLBjork
23-10-2008, 06:56
Let's throw in this one:


In cases of contradiction, the special rules of a magic item take precedence over normal game rules.

Lance (Mounted Only) = Normal rule for lances

Must use magic close combat weapon = special rules of magic weapons.

Therefore: Must use lance.

theunwantedbeing
23-10-2008, 07:07
Magic weapon rules:
-must use a magic close cobmat weapon if you have it

Lance rules:
-no rules for using one on foot. The lance on foot is not a close combat weapon (there are no ranged rules, the lance is not a ranged weapon for that singular reason..why should close combat weapons follow a different set of rules?)

Close combat rules:
-no weapon switching.

So the magic weapon rules are not broken as the lance used on foot isnt a close combat weapon.
The lance rules are not broken as we arent using it.
The close combat rules ARE broken as we are forced to switch from a weapon we cannot use in that situation, despite not being allowed to switch weapons.

So we go to the most important rule on page 3 and dice it (assuming both opinions clash).

Then you make up a house rule incase the situation arises.

The most logical being to allow the model to switch to a weapon that is usable in that situation.(usually a hand weapon)

Mireadur
23-10-2008, 12:19
i dont see contradiction, magic weapons rules specify that certain magical weapons follow the rules for mundane weapons of its type (the case of the dreadlance), since it follows the rules for a normal lance, you wont be able to use it on foot. Again i implore the people negating this evidence to read my post with the counter-logic arising when you switch the dreadlance for a 2 hand weapon.

Harwammer
23-10-2008, 14:56
'Hand weapon'
close combat weapons which don't have other rules are treated as hand weapons

'Lance'
close combat weapon which doesn't have other rules when on foot.

Thus, I suggest magic lance on foot functions as a hand weapon (i.e. doesn't get any 'mounted only' rules)... Even if this solution is wrong at least it is simple.

apbevan
23-10-2008, 23:52
(P.121) "A character that has a magic close combat weapon cannot use any other close combat weapons, although it can carry a shield as normal. No character can carry more than one magic weapon. Magic weapons always ignore any special rules that apply to an ordinary weapon of the same type unless otherwise specified in the description of the weapon."

So it explicitly says can not use any other weapon.
It explicitly says ignores special rules that apply to an ordinary weapon of the same type.

Ordinary Lance requires you to to be mounted to use.
Dreadlance is a Magic weapon and so must be used.

So here we are at an impasse where the character can not use any weapon to attack yet must attack.
I think a fair compromise is to not give the bonus of a lance but still allow him to use it per the rules. Else dice for it.

Lord Dan
24-10-2008, 01:57
Just as a side note, the comment "cannot use any other weapons" is meant to indicate that you cannot use it with an additional hand weapon.

If you followed the rules the way you're intepretting them, you wouldn't be allowed to switch to a hand weapon if your magic weapon is rendered useless by a spell or magical effect, as you technically would still "have" the magic weapon.

BEEGfrog
24-10-2008, 03:32
The dreadlance description defines it as a lance, this overules the general magic rule that magic weapons don't have the rules for equivalent mundane rules. The dragonlance counts as a lance, therefore it effectively does not exist as a weapon while on foot.

As it effectively does not exist then it canot be used in preference to a mundane weapon, so a mundane weapon can be used, the only mundane weapon available is a hand weapon so a hand weapon is used.

There are two reasons why the character can start using a handweapon:
As the dragonlance effectively cannot be used on foot, the character can never count as using it while on foot so cannot be penalised for switching from it.
The general rule against switching weapons is to stop people unfairly switching weapons voluntarily thus gaining an unfair advantage. This case is an example of the rule that situation specific rules override the general rule, i.e. you cannot switch weapons unless another rule forces you to switch. The specific dreadlace rule of not being usable on foot overrides the general rule of not being able to switch. This is similar to the case of a magic weapon being destroyed, the character switches to a backup handweapon.

Jagosaja
24-10-2008, 05:38
The dreadlance description defines it as a lance, this overules the general magic rule that magic weapons don't have the rules for equivalent mundane rules. The dragonlance counts as a lance, therefore it effectively does not exist as a weapon while on foot.

Say what???

First of all, there is a defined rule in the rulebook stating that a character must use a magic weapon if he has one. Also, there is a rule that he cannot use another weapon when having a magic weapon. These rules are written down in the book. They cannot be interpreted differently as they are clearly saying that - nothing is mentioned about second-hand weapon or anything of that kind, and it is just plainly ridiculous searching for a way not to use a magic weapon in combat after dismounted. Nowhere is it written that a character cannot use a lance when on foot. It is a speculation you are saying that he cannot use it and it is based on an interpretation of "mounted only" which CAN mean different things, and which is NOT DEFINED what it exactly means, as nowhere is mentioned he cannot use it on foot. It is just your speculation. Those mentioned above are rules, yours is interpretation. What overrides what?

PLEASE state where it is SPECIFICALLY stated that a character cannot use a lance when on foot. Not mounted only or such things, but a rule about lance on foot.


As it effectively does not exist then it canot be used in preference to a mundane weapon, so a mundane weapon can be used, the only mundane weapon available is a hand weapon so a hand weapon is used.

Come on, please. A lance exists no more? Effectively? What about the rule that he must use it? It is written very clearly: MUST! There are no exceptions written for the lance.

Condottiere
24-10-2008, 05:48
Mexican stand-off.

How have tournaments ruled on this matter? Anyone know? Did they give a reason or was it, "Because I said so."

FigureFour
24-10-2008, 13:34
The dragonlance counts as a lance, therefore it effectively does not exist as a weapon while on foot.

As I've said before, this is an assumption.

Please state where the rules say "Mounted Only" means "This weapon ceases to exits when the model carrying it isn't mounted," instead of the more reasonable, "These rules do not apply when not mounted."

Condottiere
24-10-2008, 13:57
Remember - Dragonlances exist only in Krynn.

Lord Inquisitor
24-10-2008, 14:47
Mexican stand-off.
Heh, I said there'd be no clear answer in post #3...

It just needs a FAQ.

BEEGfrog
24-10-2008, 14:48
As I've said before, this is an assumption.

Please state where the rules say "Mounted Only" means "This weapon ceases to exits when the model carrying it isn't mounted," instead of the more reasonable, "These rules do not apply when not mounted."

Mounted only is as obvious as GW can ever get, if you are not mounted you can't use it. Your only two options are:

* to do nothing because you cant use the lance because you can't use it. It doesn't disappear, you can't use it because the rules say you can't use it unless mounted. You can't use the lance on foot because being on foot doesn't count as mounted and if you aren't mounted you can't use the lance. I.e. the lance cannot be used. If you rule that you cannot use another weapon while in posession of a (even unusable) magic weapon, then you end up not being able to use anything. Nothing about not being able to use A and not being able to use B allows either A or B to be used.

* as described above (and I will go into a "not mounted can't use lance" diatribe again if necessary) the lance is ineligible, if the ineligibility is allowed to override the can't use anything but magic weapon rule, then you can use the hand weapon that the rules say you have in addition to the lance.

This may not seem like common sense to you, lots of the rules don't make sense to me either, but they are the rules of warhammer. There are a whole load of interpretation of rules that really are interpretations withour convincing text to back them up, but in this case "mounted only" really means "mounted only": it is actually written, is even in the same section, isn't given different text elsewhere with a separate meaning, it really actually means "only while mounted". If the limit only appeared in the army list section of the book, then it would probably mean you could only give lances to mounted, but because it is in the bit of the book which explains the use and effects of weapons in combat, it means that the "mounted only" applies to using the weapon in combat (or, in this case, not using the weapon if you aren't mounted).

And if we are in the situation of requiring cites, please can you find one, anywhere, to back up your interpretation in any part of the rules, army books FAQs, dictionaries or grammar guides? Is any rule ever interpreted that way anywhere. I have cited the "mounted only" quote as I believe it to be a clear and unambiguous statement of when a lance can be used, you need to provide evidence of why it is unclear or where your interpretation is part of the rules. If you look elsewhere in this forum you will see I back down and acknowledge mistakes when presented with evidence and supporting logic. In this case I would be ready to accept no attacks rather than my preferred mundane HW option, but not the lance as lances can't be used on foot.

theunwantedbeing
24-10-2008, 14:56
This is just rediculous.

The magical weapon states you must use a magical close combat weapon if you have one.
Is a lance on foot a close combat weapon?
No.
Why is it not a magical close combat weapon?
There are no rules for it when you are on foot, therefore it must not be a usable weapon while on foot, so the magical weapon rule must not apply.
Prove it then.
There are no rules for using a Bow in close combat. Therfore you cannot use a Bow in close combat, nor will it count as a hand weapon, as it does not state you can use it as a hand weapon in combat. You can however use your hand weapon in close combat as it is stated to apply in close combat.

Now, if that doesnt prove that the dreadlance, being a magical lance, is not usable while on foot, then nothing will. As I have been completely fair and logical about the whole situation and gone through the problems.

kaulem
24-10-2008, 14:58
10 bonus points to Condo for making me laugh!!!

FigureFour
24-10-2008, 17:18
There are no rules for it when you are on foot, therefore it must not be a usable weapon while on foot
No. People keep saying this but there is absolutely nothing in the rules to support it. It's a perfectly fine assumption, but it doesn't mean that everyone else has to make the same interpertation as you do.


Prove it then.
There are no rules for using a Bow in close combat. Therfore you cannot use a Bow in close combat, nor will it count as a hand weapon, as it does not state you can use it as a hand weapon in combat. You can however use your hand weapon in close combat as it is stated to apply in close combat.
Maybe I'm crazy but if someone wanted to use their bow in close combat, I'd let them. I mean, it's not going to do them any good.


Now, if that doesnt prove that the dreadlance, being a magical lance, is not usable while on foot, then nothing will.
CONGRADULATIONS! YOU'VE FIGURED IT OUT! THERE IS NO PROOF THAT YOUR OPINION IS MORE RIGHT THAN THE OPPOSING VIEWPOINT!


As I have been completely fair and logical about the whole situation and gone through the problems.
You have been logical, but not fair. It would be fair to consider the logic behind the opposing viewpoint, something very few people here are doing.


Mounted only is as obvious as GW can ever get, if you are not mounted you can't use it.
Thanks for repeating yourself instead of answering the question.

Did you consider my point that starting a block of rules with the note "mounted only" might mean "the following rules only apply when mounted"?


* as described above (and I will go into a "not mounted can't use lance" diatribe again if necessary) the lance is ineligible, if the ineligibility is allowed to override the can't use anything but magic weapon rule, then you can use the hand weapon that the rules say you have in addition to the lance.
Will your diatribe actually include some reason why your opinion is more valid than someone else's? Because I'd love to hear it.


This may not seem like common sense to you, lots of the rules don't make sense to me either, but they are the rules of warhammer.
Actually I don't think using a horesman's lance on foot makes sense, even if you are super strong. I don't think using a lance any time other then the turn you charge on horseback makes sense.

However, I think the rules on this issue are confused and could go either way.


There are a whole load of interpretation of rules that really are
interpretations withour convincing text to back them up, but in this case "mounted only" really means "mounted only": it is actually written, is even in the same section, isn't given different text elsewhere with a separate meaning, it really actually means "only while mounted". If the limit only appeared in the army list section of the book, then it would probably mean you could only give lances to mounted, but because it is in the bit of the book which explains the use and effects of weapons in combat, it means that the "mounted only" applies to using the weapon in combat (or, in this case, not using the weapon if you aren't mounted).

Yes, like I said it could mean "these effects only apply in combat" any other effects granted by the weapon that aren't part of the lance rules could still apply.


And if we are in the situation of requiring cites, please can you find one, anywhere, to back up your interpretation in any part of the rules, army books FAQs, dictionaries or grammar guides?
You mean my position that there's really nothing in the rules that indicates what answer is correct? I'm not the one insisting there's a clear answer in the rules here, I'm chastising people for trying to claim their opinion as fact without a good reason to support it.


I have cited the "mounted only" quote as I believe it to be a clear and unambiguous statement of when a lance can be used, you need to provide evidence of why it is unclear or where your interpretation is part of the rules.
I think it clearly and unambiguously states that the lance rules do not apply in close combat. Some people consider it a logical extrapolation that any weapon with the lance rules cannot apply ANY of its rules in combat.

They might be right, but I don't see a reason why.

As I've stated before, the CORRECT course of action here is to discuss it with your opponent, roll off if need be and wait for a FAQ.


If you look elsewhere in this forum you will see I back down and acknowledge mistakes when presented with evidence and supporting logic. In this case I would be ready to accept no attacks rather than my preferred mundane HW option, but not the lance as lances can't be used on foot.

I respect that you'll back down in the face of proof and I'll take your word that that is the case. However, I cannot respect the position "I have an opinion but nothing to back it up. Therefore THERE CANNOT POSSIBLY BE ANOTHER ANSWER."

Both sides have equally valid explinations for why they are right.
Neither side can proove they are right.

Mireadur
24-10-2008, 17:39
K, we accept elephant as a pet

Jagosaja
24-10-2008, 22:21
Actually, I accept it does not make sense to use a lance in close combat rather than in charge when mounted. It really does not. It does not, either, make sense to do otherwise with the magical lance (unless it is ultra-light and easy to swing :) ). I myself don't use magic lances, so I really have no benefit from claiming opposite statements.

But, I have come across that rule which states that a character must use a magic weapon. Sure it is contradictory with common sense considering dismounted-magic-lance users, but the rule is there. There is also a rule that says when you use a magic weapon you cannot use another weapon. The same thing here. On the page with weapons, where lance is, on the top it says that those weapons are close combat weapons, therefore lance is a close combat weapon. No problem there I think. Finally there is a rule for magic item that says that in case of contradiction, the special rule of a magic item takes precedence over normal game rules. And now we fall into a trap. Is "cannot use a lance when on foot" a normal game rule? If it is, then it is overriden as the special rule of a magic item takes precedence over normal game rules. If it is not, then it is truly not a game rule at all and we cannot claim that a model cannot use a lance while on the first place. Therefore, although not correct by our sense, it seems to me that a model with magic lance must use it always, mounted or not. How will he use it, I don't know, but he has to use it by the rules. And because of the nature of the specific magic weapon, I think he will retain the autohit rule.

theunwantedbeing
24-10-2008, 22:43
Where exactly is this rule that states that magical effects take precedence over mundane effects where there is a contradiction?

A lance on foot is not a close combat weapon. So there is no contradiction.

TheDarkDaff
24-10-2008, 23:21
Pg 120 second paragragh.

KharnTheBetrayer01
25-10-2008, 00:14
Dear Lord, is this still going on?

Ladies and Gentlemen, lets agree to disagree.

If it comes to it, Roll a dice and decide that way.

I have consulted around with gaming and non-gaming friends and have discovered that peoples opinions of what be more impressive imagery-wise vary. A Vampire wielding a lance on foot, or discarding the lance and diving upon the enemy, claws extended to rend them limb from limb. So we rolled for it, everyone was happy and the vampire used his bare hands the rest of the match.

See those words? "everyone was happy" Very important.

The issue can be argued either way. The "can't use it at all" does have a more persuasive argument but seems a little unfair, especially that the Vamp lost his Nightmare and a magic weapon in one swift attack.

So yeah, accept that both sides have a valid argument, roll on it for now until GW take a full official stance.

BEEGfrog
25-10-2008, 01:13
Pg 120 "In cases of contradiction, the special rule of a magic item takes precedence over normal game rules"

Pg 121 (As amended in errata in FAQ) "Magic weapons ignore any rules that apply to an ordinary weapon of the same type unless otherwise specified in the description of the weapon"

Right, how does this apply to the rule that you have to use magic weapons instead of mundane? Well, if the magic weapon's specific rules say you can't use the magic weapon in certain circumstances it would mean that pg 120 applied and the restriction on use would override the general rule requiring magic weapon use.

Does this apply to dreadlance? As its description says it is a lance, the rules for lances become part of the specific rules for this magic item so it does apply. In accordance with pg121 the rules for lances are specified in the item's description by saying that it is a lance.

Now for the contentious issue of what "mounted only" means. The key part for me is the word "only". I could accept the theory that the section only applied while mounted and the bonusses wouldn't be applied but the weapon could still be used if the brackets contained just "mounted" or even "while mounted". But "only" makes the phrase far more exclusive and far more active, especially with the phrase "used exclusively by mounted warriors" in the description below.
In addition to this, every other weapon either has no text in the bracket if the same rules are used mounted and on foot or two entries one with "infantry" or "mounted" with the separate rules for when on foot and mounted respectively. If the theory of the lance being usable on foot had any credence then lances would either have two entries and not have "only" after "mounted" or have no text in brackets after the weapon name.

This argument for this definition has citations, logic chains, evidence both for the argument, that "mounted only" means not on foot, and against the alternative that lances can be used on foot. Both theories are not equal, one has evidence for it and the other has evidence against it. Please provide an argument with evidence rather than a claim it is a matter of opinion if you won't accept this interpretation.

Checking peoples citations has changed my opinion on this subject, I am now convinced that pg 120 overrules the general requirement to use a magic weapon, as the description for the dreadlance incorporate the rules for lance making the dreadlance a close combat weapon only while mounted. I started out thinking that there was a good, a marginal and an invalid interpretation and I now think there is a valid and two invalid interpretations.

The valid interpretation is to use mundane HW while on foot (bonus +1 AS for HW&Sh applies), magic dreadlance while mounted (counting +2S on charge and hitting automatically whether or not counting as charging).

Citizen
25-10-2008, 07:06
Your opponent not being able to use the Dreadlance is simply another reward for killing the Blood Dragon. As a mounted-only weapon, he shouldn't be able to use it on foot.

Jagosaja
25-10-2008, 07:46
Pg 120 "In cases of contradiction, the special rule of a magic item takes precedence over normal game rules"

Pg 121 (As amended in errata in FAQ) "Magic weapons ignore any rules that apply to an ordinary weapon of the same type unless otherwise specified in the description of the weapon"

Right, how does this apply to the rule that you have to use magic weapons instead of mundane? Well, if the magic weapon's specific rules say you can't use the magic weapon in certain circumstances it would mean that pg 120 applied and the restriction on use would override the general rule requiring magic weapon use.

Does this apply to dreadlance? As its description says it is a lance, the rules for lances become part of the specific rules for this magic item so it does apply. In accordance with pg121 the rules for lances are specified in the item's description by saying that it is a lance.

Now for the contentious issue of what "mounted only" means. The key part for me is the word "only". I could accept the theory that the section only applied while mounted and the bonusses wouldn't be applied but the weapon could still be used if the brackets contained just "mounted" or even "while mounted". But "only" makes the phrase far more exclusive and far more active, especially with the phrase "used exclusively by mounted warriors" in the description below.
In addition to this, every other weapon either has no text in the bracket if the same rules are used mounted and on foot or two entries one with "infantry" or "mounted" with the separate rules for when on foot and mounted respectively. If the theory of the lance being usable on foot had any credence then lances would either have two entries and not have "only" after "mounted" or have no text in brackets after the weapon name.

This argument for this definition has citations, logic chains, evidence both for the argument, that "mounted only" means not on foot, and against the alternative that lances can be used on foot. Both theories are not equal, one has evidence for it and the other has evidence against it. Please provide an argument with evidence rather than a claim it is a matter of opinion if you won't accept this interpretation.

Checking peoples citations has changed my opinion on this subject, I am now convinced that pg 120 overrules the general requirement to use a magic weapon, as the description for the dreadlance incorporate the rules for lance making the dreadlance a close combat weapon only while mounted. I started out thinking that there was a good, a marginal and an invalid interpretation and I now think there is a valid and two invalid interpretations.

The valid interpretation is to use mundane HW while on foot (bonus +1 AS for HW&Sh applies), magic dreadlance while mounted (counting +2S on charge and hitting automatically whether or not counting as charging).


Now this is a very valid explanation. I can accept that one, and will go with the fact that once dismounted, a character cannot use his lance anymore, be it ordinary or magical lance. I am still not completely sure that "mounted only" means that he cannot use it while on foot, since it really may be the other way too, but I am very close to it. Therefore I would not be surprised if there came out a ruling saying any of the two possibilities.

Thank you for your explanation.

Dexter099
26-10-2008, 03:18
If your mount dies before you strike with your lance, you may no longer use the lance and must use a hand weapon and shield instead.