PDA

View Full Version : Blood Skull Pendand vs Monster with rider



chaos spawn
07-01-2009, 10:10
How does the Blood Skull Pendant work against a character mounted on a monster?

It states that "every enemy model in B2B" gets a ST8 hit, does this mean one hit for the monster and one for the rider or are monster+rider treated as one single model?

What happens if the character is in contact with a Stegadon? One hit for each Skink (as they are all in contact) and one for the Stegadon?:eek:

Neckutter
07-01-2009, 10:15
there is only one "model" in base contact with you. the character riding a monster is one model.

the model takes a S8 hit, which is randomized 5+ hits the character.

same thing with the steg.

Atrahasis
07-01-2009, 10:19
On what do you base that Neckutter?

Bloodskull is not shooting, so there's no reason to use the shooting distribution rules.

chaos spawn
07-01-2009, 10:29
@Neckutter
In close combat a character and his monstrous mount are generally treated like two models. Usually you can choose which one you want to attack and they have independent profiles. Rules for distributing damage like for shooting do not exist as far as I know. Is there any rule that claryfies how this should be worked out?

Same thing with the Festering Shroud: Every model in B2B has to make a toughness test. How many toughness tests for a stegadon? only one?

Neckutter
07-01-2009, 10:35
page 60 "shooting at monstrous mounts"
"as a single model, the monster and its rider are considered to be a single target. it is not possible to shoot specifically at either the rider or its mount"

while not technically shooting, it isnt a template weapon so it doesnt hit both the rider and the mount.

@chaos spawn yep only one toughness test. however in your case the BRB doesnt cover which toughness you use. i could see 4+ing whose toughness is used as well.

Condottiere
07-01-2009, 10:46
Every enemy model suffers a hit.

But a rider and his mount are one model, and there's no indication that it can be directed at one or the other profile; assume that a stegadon and crew were the target, would every skink suffer damage?

And if it's a single hit, and can't be directed, it must be randomized.

Neckutter
07-01-2009, 10:48
it is only ONE hit, and the stegadon+riders are ONE model.

one hit+randomize who gets nuked.
do you really think the blood pendant would kill ALL the skinks plus wound the steg? that would be slightly more hits than one hit.

army book:lizzies, page 31
"treat stegadons as a ridden monster with more than one rider"

blindingdark
07-01-2009, 10:49
Im with Neckutter on this one, randomise the hit as only one can be hit, as it is one model in base contact, not two.

chaos spawn
07-01-2009, 11:00
@Neckutter
I just saw that in the rules text to the Blasphemous Amulet it says:"including montrous mounts" so in this case it's clear. Character and monster both have to make a toughness test. The question is, does the Festering shroud work in the same way (althoug not specifically described in the text) or is it different?

How is the Bequiling Gem worked out? Only one Leadership test for monster and rider or two individual tests?

Atrahasis
07-01-2009, 11:15
The closest parallel to the Bloodskull Pendant is the Destroyer of Eternities, which does 2 hits to both rider and mount (and would hit every skink twice, and the stegadon twice).

There is absolutely no reason to use the shooting distribution rules.

Neckutter
07-01-2009, 11:25
is the destroyer in the TK armybook? i really dont feel like getting it outta my trunk.

you can argue all you want either way. does it matter to me? no.

the blood pendant does ONE hit to EVERY model in base to base. the way it is written, it is one hit to the ridden monster(since they are one model). thus only one hit to the HE lord riding a dragon. now whether you want to randomize it with 5+ hitting the rider, or 4+ hitting the rider it doesnt matter. you get ONE hit.

same goes for the stegadon. however if you want to not read the rulebook that is fine as well.

Atrahasis
07-01-2009, 11:32
Why are you insistent on randomising? It's a close combat attack, and you normally get to choose where those go.

Accusing me of not reading the rulebook is pretty rich when you're just making up a "solution" based on nothing at all.

chaos spawn
07-01-2009, 11:35
You never distribute hits randomly in close combat. Only shooting attacks are ever randomized. Even if the Blood Skull Pendant only generates one single hit (I doubt that) to a ridden monster you can in no way distribute the hit randomly between rider and mount. Would you also randomize the single hit from a Warrior Familiar? I don't think so.

I think what Athrasis says makes more sense than using shooting rules for close combat.

Atrahasis
07-01-2009, 11:38
Well, impact hits are randomised as shooting, but only because they specifically say so.

Neckutter
07-01-2009, 11:49
well ok. since it is "like" a Close combat attack, then its simple:

check out the rules for attacking characters riding monstrous mounts. you get to direct your attack against the rider OR the mount. simple.

p61 "the enemy can choose to direct his attacks againsts either the rider or the monster and can distribute attacks between them in any way he likes."

you forego your normal attacks an make a S8 hit on the rider/mount model. you get to chose where it goes.

@atrahasis why are you insistant that you get more than one hit per model?

the blasphemous amulet works against the rider AND the mount, because it says it does. otherwise it would be ambiguous like the festering shroud.

beguiling gem is one leadership test, using the rider's leadership.

@ chaos read your book. BRB p. 59 under "monstrous mounts" "a monster and its rider or riders count as a single model in the same way as a cavalry model" you get one hit, period. no matter what you believe or think. my opinion is that the bloodskull pendant isnt a combat attack(causing an automatic hit to me sounds like shooting and chariot hits and those are randomized), and that you should randomize it. HOWEVER it shouldnt be a big deal if you wanted to "direct" your "attack" against either the rider OR the mount.

Atrahasis
07-01-2009, 12:00
I'm not insistent, I just offer it as an alternative viewpoint.

Monsters and riders are treated as separate models for a lot of things - most notably ward saves and other protective/beneficial items.

Neckutter
07-01-2009, 12:03
nope.
p59 says they are one model. true they have two different set of statistics, and saves. but they are one model. think of chariots. it is one model with several parts to it. but it is still one model.

theunwantedbeing
07-01-2009, 12:11
All parts take a hit.

Otherwise you'll get people doing the following.
Glaive of putrefaction
The character runs in and kills a skink rider or 2, the stegadon now has its strength and toughness reduced.

So long as your assuming model = every part of the model then the glaive will do that when it shouldn't really be able to at all. And the bloodskull pendant will only do a single hit to things like stegadons and ridden monsters.

So we apply it to mean model = singular parts of a multiple part model.
The bloodskull pendant inflicts a hit on everyone (sucks to be a stegadon as its got loads of riders) but the glaive of putrefaction will not cripple the stegadon after killing a couple of riders.

So every part of the model takes a hit.

The blasphemous amulet makes all parts of the stegadon take a test or take a wound for example and thats far far cheaper than the bloodskull pendant.
So you cant use the argument of "its not fair" as it blatently is.

EvC
07-01-2009, 12:20
I think the simplest solution, is to treat the Bloodskull Pendant as if it was an attack that simply does one hit to every model in base contact. As per P61 the attacker gets to direct each hit where he likes, to whatever part of the enemy model he likes. Sorted.

Neckutter
07-01-2009, 12:23
finally a use for the glaive of putrifaction!

its funny, i can site page references all day and people like to disagree. "how dare you cite page references... i want a mountrous mount+rider to be two models. i want it, i want it, i want it!"

so my chaos chariot charges theunwantedbeings' unit of chaos warriors, with a champ with the blood skull pendant. lets say i wiff my attacks, and you want to use your pendant. now you hit my chariot, both my horses, and both my chaos warriors? yeah, that makes sense. or better yet, my unit of knights charges you, and your pendant hits my chaos knights AND their horses.

Atrahasis
07-01-2009, 12:34
its funny, i can site page references all day and people like to disagree. "how dare you cite page references... i want a mountrous mount+rider to be two models. i want it, i want it, i want it!"

So you're fine with Talismans granting ward saves to dragons? They're the same model after all and the Talisman is worded "The model has a 4+ ward save".


so my chaos chariot charges theunwantedbeings' unit of chaos warriors, with a champ with the blood skull pendant. lets say i wiff my attacks, and you want to use your pendant. now you hit my chariot, both my horses, and both my chaos warriors? yeah, that makes sense. or better yet, my unit of knights charges you, and your pendant hits my chaos knights AND their horses.That's a lovely strawman.

Monsters != cavalry != chariots.

Neckutter
07-01-2009, 12:37
usually talismans say "the bearer" or "the wearer" has a 4+ or whatever save. it usually doesnt say "the model" please give me an example where it says "the model has a ...ward save"


the same rule that makes cavalry mounts one model, makes mounstrous mounts one model.

EDIT: Aha! i found it myself. ye olde collar of khorne. appearantly it says "the model" gains a 6+ ward save which it would apply to its mount as well. why? because it is one model. why also? because the golden eye of tzeentch right next to it specifically says it doesnt confer.

Havock
07-01-2009, 12:38
You do know that with the constant mixing up of model and bearer in the item selection, that insisting on 'model = both rider and monstrous mount', you open up a whole can of worms? Because then the Collar of Khorne would give the Dragon a 6+ wardsave.

A M. Mount + rider = 2 models which are on a single base and in B2B.

Neckutter
07-01-2009, 12:45
A M. Mount + rider = 2 models which are on a single base and in B2B.

page number for reference please?

Havock
07-01-2009, 12:54
None, but it's the easiest way, I guess. That or picking which model is affected. Let's wait for an Errata.

Uukrul
07-01-2009, 13:08
the same rule that makes cavalry mounts one model, makes mounstrous mounts one model.


So by using that reasoning when I use a warshine give my knights or lord on chaos dragon wins a challenge and rolsl on the Eye of the Gods table both the rider and the mount get the Gift?

Neckutter
07-01-2009, 13:35
instead of being absolutely mean to you, ill be nice.

read page 43 " once the result of the roll has been determined, make a note on your army roster-your character now has the gift for the rest of the battle"

now if it says it affects the character... maybe it affects the character?

ALSO NONE of the gifts says "model has blah" it says "the favoured one has blah"

@havock ive already conceded to the point that they get to direct their one S8 hit where they want because it is form of close combat "attack".

EvC
07-01-2009, 13:35
No, because in that case it is merely "the favoured one" who gets the bonus. Brilliant, eh?

Uukrul
07-01-2009, 18:29
instead of being absolutely mean to you, ill be nice.

read page 43 " once the result of the roll has been determined, make a note on your army roster-your character now has the gift for the rest of the battle"

now if it says it affects the character... maybe it affects the character?

ALSO NONE of the gifts says "model has blah" it says "the favoured one has blah"


But with your reasoning the Character and the mount are the same model...therefore the mount is just part of the character like armor. So why wouldn't get the gift?

Neckutter
07-01-2009, 20:48
read my above post please. the WoC book says it only affects the character. it says that the CHARACTER'S profile changes, and nothing else. if a character was riding a dragon, they both have profiles. THE CHARACTER'S PROFILE CHANGES.

pretty simple.

TroyJPerez
08-01-2009, 03:13
This is actually why I think the warshrine is stupid. It gives champions the eye of the gods rule, but since only characters are allowed to roll on it if they win a challenge against another character or large target, it is useless to them.

On a side note I need to find my rulebook to see if there is any part that says that character and mount are two models that share a base cause untill I can I'm inclined to agree with Neckutter. Plus I really want the Glave of Putrification to work in that way, lol.

GodlessM
08-01-2009, 03:38
This is actually why I think the warshrine is stupid. It gives champions the eye of the gods rule, but since only characters are allowed to roll on it if they win a challenge against another character or large target, it is useless to them.


The point of it giving champions the rule is so that they get the roll as well as the obligation to challenge. I don't know why you'd see it any other way, especially what you have suggested here.

TroyJPerez
08-01-2009, 07:44
Ok question slightly off topic. Would you randomize damage done from Flames of the Pheonix on a monster and rider? How about Steal Soul? And when you are requred to take characteristic tests who's stats do you use? The better of both stat lines? Just some more questions. I know that the rulebooks implies that a character and monsterous mount are one model, but sure makes things confusing. Would be a lot easier if they were two models that shared a base.

Atrahasis
08-01-2009, 08:27
All damage from spells is distributed as shooting unless otherwise stated.
If a character and mount are required to take a characteristic test, the best value is used. (cf BRB FAQ, first question in Misc section).

@GodlessM : That may be the intent, but the rule is entirely different.

TroyJPerez
08-01-2009, 08:32
Wait so being on a mount with wounds gives me a 1/3 chance of not losing a wound to steal soul? Sweeeeeeet!!!! lol. And I'm assuming that the Glave of Putrification would hit both the rider and the monsterous mount effect wise?

Edit: Wait so if in a characteristic test is taken from lets say Skaven Plague Censor Bearers, and the mount has a higher toughness to resist it, is the wound still randomized or does it go to the mount since its stat was used for the test?

Uukrul
08-01-2009, 08:58
read my above post please. the WoC book says it only affects the character. it says that the CHARACTER'S profile changes, and nothing else. if a character was riding a dragon, they both have profiles. THE CHARACTER'S PROFILE CHANGES.

pretty simple.

Hmmm it never says it only affects characters it says

"Chaos models that may issue challenges must do so whenever they are able. furthermore, such is their thirst for glory that Chaos characters may not refuse challenges. roll on the following table when a character with the Eye of the gods special rule kills an enemy character in a challenge or kills a model the large target special rule.Once the result of the roll has been determined, make a note on your army roster-your character now has that gift for the rest of the battle!" WoC page 43

So no where does it say characters only affected. The rule is that a character must win a challenge or kill a large target to roll on the table and because a mount and rider are 1 model they both get the gift. and yes the last says "your character now has that gift for the rest of the battle!" but that's not really making it affect only character its just a statement like saying that only use this rule in warhammer.

Good job on talking about how much you can quote the books then not reading the rule when someone points out something.

On a different note I find it funny that it never states what rolls from the table affect what only your "character now has that gift for the rest of the battle!" gives you an idea. Does it mean that win my hero wins a duel my lord gets to roll? now I would never do something as bad as saying it affects my mounts or to have the roll go to a different guy....but god GW needs to make things clear.

Edit: sorry I've seem to have gotten a little off topic but the rules of how riders/mount one model sort of have alot on how the pendant should work.

TroyJPerez
08-01-2009, 09:07
@Uukrul: This is a perfect example of why people drunk shouldn't be posting on forums at 2am in the morning. I have tried to read this 3 to 4 times and still can't make sense of what he is trying to say. I'm gonna go stick my head in the microwave on high for 3 minutes and try reading it again, lol. j/k. But serious What are you talking about?

Uukrul
08-01-2009, 09:16
Oh sorry I guess I wrote it a little fast. Neckutter was talking about how Blood Skull Pendant would only get 1 roll vs a lord on a dragon. So I said then would both the character and the mount get affected by the roll from eye of the gods? He said no with nothing to show. So I went on to show that by the rule it looks like you can have both the mount and the character be effected.

lol And sir if I was drunk I think a warhammer forum would be the last place to be!

Gazak Blacktoof
08-01-2009, 09:33
The closest parallel to the Bloodskull Pendant is the Destroyer of Eternities, which does 2 hits to both rider and mount (and would hit every skink twice, and the stegadon twice).

This is how I would play it as well. The Destroyer of Eternities specifically addresses the issue which is very helpful.

I'd rather go with "its a bit like this, so I'll follow those rules" than ignore the DoE rules and just take a wild stab in the dark.

TroyJPerez
08-01-2009, 09:45
@Uukrul Yes but the eye of the gods rule says it effects the Character, not the model so the mount wouldn't get the effect. It actually separates them out instead of saying they are one model. But then again the basic rulebook never says that Dragon and Rider and one model. It specifically says they count as one model (which might be the same thing), which might mean they count as one model for shooting purposes? So you can't target one over the other? Or maybe for moving so they both don't have different speeds? Who knows.

Blueskies
08-01-2009, 10:32
RAW, it is only one model.

honestly until it is errata'd and you know it will be, take glaive of puterfecation as you can wound the elf one and reduce the dragon too str 2 tough 2, or just take rapier of extasy and hope he fails that str test and then has to remove his whole model from the game.

TroyJPerez
08-01-2009, 10:36
Yeah I agree. Honestly it would fix everything if they were two models sharing a base, but RAW interpretation is that it is one model. So I will add the Glave of Puterfecation to all my armylists! Wuahahahahah Broken Rules FTCW! (For the Cheese Win!)

Blueskies
08-01-2009, 10:39
If your DE take the chill blade, make one wound and the whole model can't attack at all....

you know this will all be erratta'd

TroyJPerez
08-01-2009, 10:42
I am a little bummed though. Throws my idea of using the whip of submission to make dragons attack their own rider. I can't do it cause they are all one model now. And you can only make it attack something in base contact, and I'm not sure if your considered in base contact with yourself, lol.

Cambion Daystar
08-01-2009, 10:46
you know this will all be erratta'd

yeah right. GW and erratas. Keep dreaming

Condottiere
08-01-2009, 10:52
There's hope yet; rumour has the DE FAQ is out, or at least the German version that I had translated (assuming it's real).

EvC
08-01-2009, 13:59
This is how I would play it as well. The Destroyer of Eternities specifically addresses the issue which is very helpful.

I'd rather go with "its a bit like this, so I'll follow those rules" than ignore the DoE rules and just take a wild stab in the dark.

You're telling me I need to have read the Tomb Kings army book, esp. one tiny little bit on a magic item in order to figure out how a magic item in the Chaos book works? Just, no. You'll also note that the Destroyer of Eternities is far more expensive than the Pendant, so it makes sense that it is better and effects all parts of a model. Plus it could be inferred that if it bothers to state that it does a certain thing, then the default would be to not do it, and so an item that doesn't state it does that... doesn't do it :)

Neckutter
08-01-2009, 14:17
how is the DE FAQ coming out, yet WoC have been released for a longer time?

Atrahasis
08-01-2009, 14:19
Whu?

Dark Elves have been out significantly longer (3 months or so) than Warriors of Chaos.

Neckutter
08-01-2009, 14:22
Hmmm it never says it only affects characters it says

"make a note on your army roster-your character now has that gift for the rest of the battle!" WoC page 43

So no where does it say characters only affected.
.

how does "you character has the gift" not explicit enough for you. seriously? it doesnt say "model", it doesnt say "character and mount" it only says it changes the character's profile. and as stated before, a mountrous mount is ONE model with two profiles.

learn to read

Gazak Blacktoof
08-01-2009, 14:54
You're telling me I need to have read the Tomb Kings army book, esp. one tiny little bit on a magic item in order to figure out how a magic item in the Chaos book works?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying :rolleyes:.

Neckutter
08-01-2009, 15:09
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying :rolleyes:.

the destroyer of E explicitly says what it does. i doubt that its' special effects can be translated to a different armybook AND to a new edition(this is 7th, TK was written in 6th)

EvC
08-01-2009, 15:17
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying :rolleyes:.

Well, yes, you did say that, but don't feel so bad about it :(

yoshimo
08-01-2009, 19:01
Is the rider in base contact? yes
Is the monster in base contact? yes
what leads us to believe that it only hits one or the other?

Neckutter
08-01-2009, 19:36
because there is only one base, and the rulebook says they are one model.

Shamfrit
08-01-2009, 20:06
It is one model. Granted. But it is a model with 2 clearly defined constituant parts. The rider and the mount have two entirely seperate stat lines, and operate as two entirely seperate enteties with the sole exception that one is parking his **** on the other.

You don't randomise, because it's not a shooting attack.

You don't allocate target, because it's not a close combat attack.

If the item states it hits a model in base contact then it affects all constituant parts of the model equally, much like the Destroyer, much like the Censers of Clan Pestilens, and a few other examples that affect consituant parts of 'a model.'

If you target Naestra with the Glaive, and she's dropped in stats, it does not reduce the other parts of the model.

But of course,

I refer you to Atraharsis's Avatar.

Neckutter
08-01-2009, 20:09
i agree with you that that is how is SHOULD HAVE been written to do. but unfortunatly it isnt written as so.the destroyer of eternity specifically lists that it hits both the riders and the mount twice, why couldnt they have written it in the blood skull pendant as well?

Shamfrit
08-01-2009, 20:14
Because I assume Games Workshop at least like to think it's customers have a basic grasp of implied grammar. Obviously, that isn't the case, and arguments like this one will rage over the pettiest, littlest indescrepencies or differing opinions on the way things are worded.

What's important is playing it to the group's opinion you're playing in.

Otherwise Festering Buboes would inflict a wound to the rider and the mount, and this would go on to open so many cans of so many worms that it'd probably flood Warseer with banal rules thre.....oh.

Wait...

Never mind.

Neckutter
08-01-2009, 20:25
Otherwise Festering Buboes would inflict a wound to the rider and the mount, and this would go on to open so many cans of so many worms that it'd probably flood Warseer with banal rules thre.....oh.

.

arent you advocating this happen? festering buboes WOULD hit both models, since the same rule that makes cavalry+rider one model, makes a monstrous mount+rider one model. since you dont want to use this rule, then cavalry is actually two models...

yoshimo
09-01-2009, 07:53
by your logic then if the rider of a cavalry model was killed the horse would continue to run around, there are clear rules stipulating that once a cavalry rider is killed his mount is removed also, you cannot target one or the other.
this does not apply to monstrous mounts as they are separate from their riders albeit on a shared base:
"may choose to inflict a S8 hit on every model in base contact"
the monstrous mount is a model in base contact.
the rider is a model in base contact.
the same does not apply to cavalry as there are clear rules in the book,
shooting pg 31: all shots are worked out against the rider, if the rider is slain the mount is removed aswell
close combat pg 34: when you are fighting against cavalry all blows are struck against the rider

Neckutter
09-01-2009, 08:07
so you want to make it a special case just for monstrous mounts and chariots(not based on anything written in the rulebook), then?

and you want to ignore the fact that the rulebook states several times that the monstrous mount+rider are one model?

Shamfrit
09-01-2009, 14:37
Inflict one wound to a single model 24" away.

That does not say 'inflict one wound to each constituant part of the model.'

Neither does it say 'inflict it to one part, or one aspect of that model.'

Anyone who tries to play Buboes against me or near me and suggests that it inflicts a wound to the rider and his or her dragon is getting to get what can only be described as a Dubious Looking Slap.

However, the Pendant is different, because it's based on base contact. For the purpose of the base, the rider and the mount are counted as one model, that is to say, they share the base. The rider and the mount are both in base contact with the Pendant, they just occupy the same space.

Atrahasis
09-01-2009, 15:28
That's an amazingly selective reading of the rule you have there.

Neckutter
09-01-2009, 15:49
Anyone who tries to play Buboes against me or near me and suggests that it inflicts a wound to the rider and his or her dragon is getting to get what can only be described as a Dubious Looking Slap.

.

i agree with you. Anyone who tries to play blood skull pendant against me or near me and suggests that it inflicts a wound to the rider and his or her dragon is getting to get what can only be described as a Dubious Looking Slap.

Condottiere
09-01-2009, 16:07
So hitting anyone abusing Warhammer rules is a legal defense against battery?

Neckutter
09-01-2009, 16:12
i was trying to make a point about how his point was nonsensical. i dont know if it worked or not.
it was copy/paste what he said, except i inserted the blood skull pendant.

Condottiere
09-01-2009, 16:16
Don't worry, I wasn't aiming that barb at you in particular, but physical assault is often mentioned in regard to disagreements on the tabletop.

;)

Shamfrit
09-01-2009, 16:17
And on that note of continued immaturity, unsubscribed.

No point flogging a dead horse with a rulebook or semantics anymore - nobody listens to one another.

Wapniak
09-01-2009, 19:51
I think the FAQu resolves the problem (you randomise the hit).

TroyJPerez
09-01-2009, 19:55
Yes but it still mean that the Glave of Putrefication owns face now! Since a rider and his mount are considered one model, lol.

Wapniak
09-01-2009, 20:06
So WoC got at least one decent magic weapon. Cool! :D

Neckutter
10-01-2009, 01:10
so now all the new stegadon-armylists from lizardmen will FEAR WoC.

"oh noes, which one has the sickly looking halberd!!"

Wapniak
10-01-2009, 01:38
I almost fell of my chair :D