PDA

View Full Version : Frost Blade single model question.



Darkmaw
24-02-2009, 08:26
Hi, my gaming group had a discussion recently on the Frostblade. I apologise in advance if this has been discussed and would appreciate if someone points me to the thread/discussion.

Ok, the contention was if Frostblade affects a dragon+rider if anyone of them is hit. The arguement was supported as follows:

BRB Pg 59: " A monster and its rider/riders count as a SINGLE MODEL
in the same way as a calvary, although different rules apply"

BRB Pg 60: " As a SINGLE model, the monster and its rider are
considered to be a single target. It is not possible to shoot
specifically at the rider or its mount........roll D6, randomise
hits "

BRB Pg 61: " The enemy can choose to direct its attack against either
the rider or the monster, and can distribute attacks between them in
any way he likes."

The first 2 points obviously refers the dragon+rider to a single model.

The latest FAQ Part 2 : Rule of burning iron: "The spell hits the multiple-part
MODEL, and then the hit must be randomised against the different
parts"

This answer merely clarifies point 3 in which the Rule of burning iron is
treated like a normal shooting attack which is concordant with the
shooting rules targeting a single model. However it brings into the context of "parts within the model"

As another point:

The VC Frost blade entry says: If a model suffers 1 or more wounds
from the Frost blade (after saves etc), THEY are slain outright and
lose all remaining rules.

There seems to be suggest that "they" refers to 2 parts (ie monster &
rider) within the Single model. [Refer to the above arguement on "parts"]

Another case in point:

WOC, Golden Eye of Tzeentch. It is written that the model gets the ward save and explicitly added the following statement that it doesnt apply to mounts.

So all in all, the Frost blade seems to affect the dragon+rider model due to rules as written.

Any comments?

Asmodiseus
24-02-2009, 08:58
Lol I put this exact question in the Extreme RaW rulings thread.

Anyway if you are an extreme rules nazi then yes if you wound either the mount or the character then both are destroyed. However this is not how it is intended to be by any means and you should play it as it only effects the mount or the rider.

Sifal
24-02-2009, 09:11
It can only be interpreted in this RAW way because of some sloppy GW wording that accurately covers 95% of eventualities but leaves holes. The frostblade will not kill dragon and rider simultaneously.

Case in point arguments against frostblade being able to kill both dragon and rider:

- you could choose to roll to wound against the riders lower toughness but still kill dragon outright, which is wrong.

-characters in chariots don't get killed if the chariot is auto-destroyed by a str7 hit even though it is considered 'one model'

The Red Scourge
24-02-2009, 09:37
Anyway if you are an extreme rules nazi then yes if you wound either the mount or the character then both are destroyed. However this is not how it is intended to be by any means and you should play it as it only effects the mount or the rider.

Sure? Its a 100 pt. item carried by a 2-300 pt model with really bad defensive qualities and possibly devastating effects on an army should he die.

Neckutter
24-02-2009, 09:43
no one will play it like that, even though it is supported by RAW. generally if you direct your attacks at the rider... you only affect the rider. and vice-versa. :)

Asmodiseus
24-02-2009, 09:54
Sure? Its a 100 pt. item carried by a 2-300 pt model with really bad defensive qualities and possibly devastating effects on an army should he die.

I play almost exclusively VC and I took Frost Blade in a 3k battle I recently played, and I would never even dream of trying to argue that it kills the mount plus rider.

On a side note put the frostblade on a vamp lord with red fury and charge into a full unit of ogre bulls and enjoy the carnage.

Neckutter
24-02-2009, 09:55
wow, the mental image!

talk about "red fury"

Gharof von Carstein
24-02-2009, 10:11
well. isnt it kinda handled? the examples you speak off are ranged attacks and magic attacks. (which are mostly counted under range also) close combat wise you can always direct attacks. its in the BRB (you quoted that bit actually) that there is a difference between close combat and shooting would seem obvious to me. sure they count as a single model for the rules of say shooting or buffs. but in close combat you have to always direct attacks.

i think thats the finer point here which could have just been taken from the rules. regardless. this is only a discussion point with a dragon or other monster being ridden by a char. horses dont stay on the field and monsters only do because of the monster reaction test. which is a second bit of rules which can only be interpreted as having to target one or the other.

so not that big a GW rule goof :)

Spirit
24-02-2009, 10:35
Sure? Its a 100 pt. item carried by a 2-300 pt model with really bad defensive qualities and possibly devastating effects on an army should he die.

Your assuming you put it on your general. I put it on a flying vampire lord in 3k who isnt my general, he goes for giants. I would never use it in a 2k-2.9k game.

I vote no, it kills dragon or rider. But, assuming you dont lose the vampire, the CR from killing a dragon should be enough to win combat anyway.

Hulkster
24-02-2009, 10:59
it kills the whoever you directed the attack against, not the whole thing

In fact even going by RAW ti does not agree with your arguement as it specificlly states hits are seperated in CC, thus the models are treated differently, thus the blade on affects either mount or rider.

Darkmaw
24-02-2009, 11:44
Ok,

@Hulk,

it kills the whoever you directed the attack against, not the whole thing....In fact even going by RAW ti does not agree with your arguement as it specificlly states hits are seperated in CC, thus the models are treated differently, thus the blade on affects either mount or rider.

Firstly, the rule i quoted specifies the attack. Not the effect of the sword.

Note: If i insert "If a rider/dragon [model] suffers 1 or more wounds from the Frost blade (after saves etc), THEY are slain outright and lose all remaining wounds. "

Does that sound a logical statement? To me it does.

@Sifal


-characters in chariots don't get killed if the chariot is auto-destroyed by a str7 hit even though it is considered 'one model'

BRB Pg 63 under high strength hits, if a CHARIOT is hit and wounded by an attack of Str 7 or more, IT loses all its remaining wounds.

The rules as written is the chariot is hit and it( the chariot) loses it wounds. The choice of word here is "it" rather than "the model". However if the effect of frost blade is to be applied, then the model (ie chariot and rider) will be slain according to RAW.


@Gharof von Carstein


that there is a difference between close combat and shooting would seem obvious to me. sure they count as a single model for the rules of say shooting or buffs. but in close combat you have to always direct attacks.

While you have to always direct attacks, there is nothing to say otherwise they become TWO separate models (ie they still count as a single model).

However my point is that,...attacks are directed at "parts" of a single model (as supposedly intended by the term "multiple part" model brought up by the latest FAQ part 2) so that eventually the effect of the sword affects the whole model.

I am pretty sure that as far as RAW is concerned, it seems legal and while we then turn to rules as intended(RAI)....who is to say that such an awesome effect is not intended for a 100 point item (bear in mind this is the cap for most Lord level characters) and a similar (albeit 1 use) instant death item like Brass Orb costs 50 points.

Thanks for the input so far.

WLBjork
24-02-2009, 20:03
Makes a good counterpoint to the "Potion of Str. affects my ridden monster" argument though :D

Loq-Gor
25-02-2009, 04:43
While you have to always direct attacks, there is nothing to say otherwise they become TWO separate models (ie they still count as a single model).

Not quite, see page 61 of BRB and read in their entirety the sections titled "Monstrous Mounts in Combat", "Excess Wounds", and "Slain Riders or Mounts" The most pertinent of these sections for this argument would be under "Monstrous Mounts in Combat" paragraph two, lines 1-3 "When it comes to attacking back, enemies in base contact with the monster will be faced with two potential targets: the rider and the monster."

Darkmaw
25-02-2009, 05:41
@Loq-Gor


"When it comes to attacking back, enemies in base contact with the monster will be faced with two potential targets: the rider and the monster."

While indeed there are 2 potential "targets" as mentioned (note again its targets not models being described)

The confusion arises because the latest FAQ on Rule of burning iron: "The spell hits the MULTIPLE-PART MODEL, and then the hit must be randomised against the different parts.

As i mentioned earlier, this brings into context, the concept of "parts within the model". Sure i could target 2 different parts of the model (ie rider/dragon)and yet it is still considered a single model (which is not explicitly stated otherwise IE Back to BRB Pg 59 the first rule i mentioned).

Loq-Gor
25-02-2009, 14:25
Sure i could target 2 different parts of the model (ie rider/dragon)and yet it is still considered a single model (which is not explicitly stated otherwise IE Back to BRB Pg 59 the first rule i mentioned).

Not target two different parts of the model, two different targets. Look under "Shooting at Monstrous Mounts", paragraph one, lines 1-2, "As a single model, the monster and its rider are considered to be a single target." This establishes a trend, target equals model equals target. Ipso Facto two targets two models.

stripsteak
25-02-2009, 14:51
it may start a trend that models are targets, but it doesn't set it up to work the other way around

a square is a rectangle....that doesn't mean all rectangles are squares

Darkmaw
25-02-2009, 14:58
Which is my point on the clarification on the Rule of Burning Iron according to the latest FAQ

The question specifically asked was "....or may the casting wizard directly target any portion of the model he wishes for?"
The answer: The spell hits the multiple-part model, and then the hits are randomised against the different parts.

The above seems to point out that a dragon+rider is a "multiple-part" model. Therefore when the casting wizard is targeting either rider/dragon...he is targeting "part" of the single model that is the dragon+rider rather than a whole separate model.

From the above it seems to say 2 targets = 2 different parts of the same single model.

shredshredxx
25-02-2009, 16:20
i'd say the easiest way to figure this one out would be to have one of your friends sit on a horse and hold very still, then plunge a knife into him. if the horse dies, you win!!

Sifal
25-02-2009, 18:46
i'd say the easiest way to figure this one out would be to have one of your friends sit on a horse and hold very still, then plunge a knife into him. if the horse dies, you win!!

you made me smile:evilgrin:

Darkmaw
26-02-2009, 00:39
i'd say the easiest way to figure this one out would be to have one of your friends sit on a horse and hold very still, then plunge a knife into him. if the horse dies, you win!!

Haha...i know what you are trying to say but isnt that what happens to a single wound calvary models??? You wound the rider and the mount "disappears"? :D

Goruax
26-02-2009, 02:49
However, in those situations, the mounts are never counted for wounding purposes, nor can they be attacked.


Page 59, WFB Rulebook, Monstrous Mounts;
"A monster and its rider or riders count as a single model in the same way as a cavalry model, although different rules apply."

Page 7, WFB Rulebook, Unit Types;
"A cavalry model is treated in all respects as a single mode. Should the rider be slain, the entire model is removed from the battle."

So, we understand that the Rider/Mount is a single model, similar to Cavalry is treated as a single model, and we understand that the Rider/Mount has different rules:

Page 59m WFB Rulebook, Monstrous Mounts;
"[...] creatures that only have 1 Wound are covered by the rules already described for cavalry."

"If a mount has 2 or more Wounds, it is classed as a monstrous mount [...]"

So now we understand that although they are treated as a single model, the rules for cavalry do not apply to single models classed as a 'monstrous mount' (such as the Rider/Dragon, since the Dragon has more than 2 Wounds)
So this also means that, unlikes the rule for cavalry explained on Page 7, monstrous mounts do not get removed if the rider is slain, as we see later.

Page 60, WFB Rulebook, Shooting at Monstrous Mounts;
"As a single model [...very big cut...] If MODELS are glued in place, it will be necessary to make a not of any casualties suffered."

So now we see that, although treated as a single model, in a similar way to cavalry but with their own rules, riders with monstrous mounts are actually seperate 'models'.

Page 61, WFB Rulebook, Monstrous Mounts in Combat;
"When it comes to attacking back, enemies in base contact with the monster will be faced with two potential targets: the rider and the monster."

Now, as we have just discovered in the Shooting at Monstrous Mounts section, riders are seperate models.
Next sentence:

Page 61, WFB Rulebook, Monstrous Mounts in Combat;
"Attacks are worked out exactly as normal, and the score required to hit [...] like all hand-to-hand fighting."

Now we can see that after you choose what attacks are going against which of these seperate models, you must determine what you need to hit as normal. And normally, you are attacking a single model, which has it's own wounds, toughness, weapon skill, etc, and this area states exactly the same, that you use that model's statistics.

Finally;

Page 61, WFB Rulebook, Excess Wounds;
"They [excess wounds] are not carried through onto the monster [...] Similarly, any excess wounds inflicted on the monster are discounted [...]"

The Frostblade, does not actually cause a certain amount of wounds, however the parallel is there. The Frostblade kills the rider outright, removing all of his wounds and taking him down to 0. First of all, there are no excess wounds that could be carried over to the mount, and secondly it is specifically stated here and earlier in the monstrous mount rules that wounds recieved are recorded seperately between the rider/mount, and that if one is killed, the other is not also removed.

So, the Frostblade intends to kill a target.
Monstrous Mount rules state that the rider is counted as a seperate model, as is the mount.
The Frostblade must target either mount or rider.
The Frostblade, if it successfully wounds, kills the rider of the mount outright, leaving the other part to fight alone.

There is no way for the Frostblade to kill both at the same time with a single attack.

Darkmaw
26-02-2009, 03:35
Page 61, WFB Rulebook, Monstrous Mounts in Combat;
"When it comes to attacking back, enemies in base contact with the monster will be faced with two potential targets: the rider and the monster."

Now, as we have just discovered in the Shooting at Monstrous Mounts section, riders are seperate models.

Read my previous arguement that Targets =/= Separate Models; rather target = 2 parts of a single model (Reference FAQ PArt 2).


Page 61, WFB Rulebook, Monstrous Mounts in Combat;
"Attacks are worked out exactly as normal, and the score required to hit [...] like all hand-to-hand fighting."

Now we can see that after you choose what attacks are going against which of these seperate models, you must determine what you need to hit as normal. And normally, you are attacking a single model, which has it's own wounds, toughness, weapon skill, etc, and this area states exactly the same, that you use that model's statistics.


This doesnt say anything other than which ever part u target, u use the part's characteristic. As example, you hit the rider using his WS, T not the mount's WS ,T. Neither does the BRB say that the close combat single model now becomes 2 separate models (a point you were saying).



Page 61, WFB Rulebook, Excess Wounds;
"They [excess wounds] are not carried through onto the monster [...] Similarly, any excess wounds inflicted on the monster are discounted [...]"

The Frostblade, does not actually cause a certain amount of wounds, however the parallel is there. The Frostblade kills the rider outright, removing all of his wounds and taking him down to 0. First of all, there are no excess wounds that could be carried over to the mount, and secondly it is specifically stated here and earlier in the monstrous mount rules that wounds recieved are recorded seperately between the rider/mount, and that if one is killed, the other is not also removed.

Sorry the wording is, the model suffers wounds after saves, They are slain..remove all remaining wounds. It doesnt specify which one and if the rider is indeed a part of the single model. All remaining wounds of the MODEL is removed. Thats what RAW says.




Monstrous Mount rules state that the rider is counted as a seperate model, as is the mount

Mind telling me which part of the rule book quotes that??


I have come to a conclusion this is a RAW problem...sigh...

SuperBeast
26-02-2009, 22:03
No really, it isn't.
Never, repeat never, have you been able to kill both rider AND monstrous mount with a single hit in CC.

They are separate targets. I would love for frostblade to work against both, but the simple reason as to why it is a 100 point magic item is not because this is the intent, but because it makes a mess of multiwound units and it's an uber KB.

I an see the rules-lawyering bouncing around, but one simple fact remains; if, at any point, MM/Char models were intended to be a single entity, then why the hell is there a monster reaction table?

Harwammer
26-02-2009, 22:24
This is a hole in the rules. A similar issue has been addressed in the WoC FAQ. Glaive of Putrefaction: cause an unsaved wound on a model and the model has its S and T both reduced to 2 for the rest of the game.

"Q. How is the Glaive of Putrefaction resolved
against ridden monsters/chariots? Are all
components reduced to S2/T2?
A. No, you will have to record separately if the
rider or the chariot/monster are affected."

Its a similar principle: Causing a wound on a model triggers effect 'X' on the model. The precedent is you can't cause effect 'X' on a monster by wounding the rider (or flip/reverse).

Its not a RAW answer, but it does illustrate the intention of how such effects work.

Goruax
27-02-2009, 18:37
Mind telling me which part of the rule book quotes that??

I did provide all relevant quotations from the Rulebook:


Page 60, WFB Rulebook, Shooting at Monstrous Mounts;
"As a single model [...very big cut...] If MODELS are glued in place, it will be necessary to make a not of any casualties suffered."

This part clearly states that each part of the single 'mounstrous mount' model is also considered a model.

ewar
28-02-2009, 13:53
Goruax wins. I'm glad someboady could be bothered to trawl the book for minutiae of wording to prevent this crap being pulled.

Darkmaw - you seem fairly keen to see this in effect? RaW arguments aside, would you actually try and do this in a game?

Lord Dan
28-02-2009, 16:15
Though it's not a huge part of the argument, the word "they" in the Frost blade description does not necessarily imply "two parts" of the model simply because it is a plural term. "They" can be thrown in whenever there is an undefined number of references. For instance, let's make up a weapon here:

Sword of Slicing
Single characters on foot only. The sword of slicing has no benefits, and if any character chooses to take it they must pass a Ld test each turn or die.

xragg
28-02-2009, 20:45
Originally Posted by Darkmaw
Mind telling me which part of the rule book quotes that??
I did provide all relevant quotations from the Rulebook:


Quote Page 60, WFB Rulebook, Shooting at Monstrous Mounts;
"As a single model [...very big cut...] If MODELS are glued in place, it will be necessary to make a not of any casualties suffered."
This part clearly states that each part of the single 'mounstrous mount' model is also considered a model.

Goruax has done very well, but one thing I would like to add to his argument. Shortly after the quote, "If the models are glued in place ...", the BRB states: If the hole in the centre of the round template is on the monster's base... The rule clearly states the monster's base when talking about the montrous mount, instead of refering to it as a model's base.

The image of these two lines is of a smaller man-sized model base sitting on top of a larger monster-sized model base. While conventially riders are glued onto the monstous mounts, the rules are written as if they are not.

As a literal example that I do by coincidence, my twilight twins are on their own base which I sit into slots of my green dragon's base (since those girls have yet to die for me, but their mounts do).

Darkmaw
02-03-2009, 08:24
Goruax wins.

Its not a me vs "rest of the world" thread. I am just hoping for an answer..which i got.


Darkmaw - you seem fairly keen to see this in effect? RaW arguments aside, would you actually try and do this in a game?

It doesn't matter if i would try to actually do this because

1) The rider would almost never die because the rider usually would still have a respectable save (at -2 modifier) and some form of ward/inverse ward/regen save

4) Even on the dragon, with all 4 attacks on the dragon (assuming all hits), u get average 0.8 wounds, which can be a plus/minus. Its a gamble.

Why would anyone pay 100 pts for something so risky on a Lord which cannot buy any ward saves now, and also subject the rest of the army to crumbling should he die????

Perhaps ewar, you might enlighten me on the uses of Frostblade (as intended)..

Lugburz
02-03-2009, 09:39
Players that let Potion of Strength boost the strengt of the whole chariot model, should have their chariot+lord killed by wounding a chariot with the frostblade ;)

Ikhoornix
02-03-2009, 10:26
In your arguments you say that the effect considers the dragon/rider as 1 model.
In that case the "THEY" in the description of the effect can only effect the entities listed in the description: the model wounded...... and the Frostblade itself (as these are the only entities mentioned)

Coram_Boy
02-03-2009, 12:04
erm... I think that you'll find that the vampire has an extra 100 points of skills, plenty enough to take shield/heavy armor and mount him on a barded horse for a respectable 2+/give him flying. A lot of vampire strategy revolves around keeping the general alive. I still don't get your logic here - vampires will do 0.8 wounds on a dragon. so 4/5 times you kill a model which is worth hundreds of points. with things like infinite hatred, and beguile (monsterous mounts not known for their ld 10) you are even more likely to do a wound. Also, what is the basis for that? only your dark elf dreadlord will not die from the pendant - assuming all hit, as you said, you score 2.222 wounds. with a 1+ save you score 0.7 wounds: that is to say, on average you kill him/her (p.c :D) but what about characters like spellcasters? With flying, you can get to spellcasters in far away units, and kill them , too. However, I don't think that it's the best option for a combat lord - just my 2 cents.

xragg
02-03-2009, 18:18
I wouldnt call a T5 model with 2+ armor save risky. Sometimes the best protection is how you manuvere your model on the board, and not the ward save he has. Other combos may be overall better then the frostblade, but that doesnt make the frostblade useless. Every list/games doesnt have to be a power game with a loss meaning the end of your warhammer life. I try to bring strong, balanced lists to tournies, but outside that I will try crazy things at times (like the aweful spirit sword) cause its only a game.