PDA

View Full Version : dwarf lord on shieldbearers



sergio
04-03-2009, 18:27
i remember a while back, there being a lot of hubbub over whether a dwarf lord on shieldbearers counted as being Mounted for purposes of his GW being at +1S or +2

was there ever an offical FAQ about this? i've checked GW sites and poked through threads on here, but didnt find anything

Malorian
04-03-2009, 18:28
No official FAQ.

Talk it over with your opponent before the game.

Neckutter
04-03-2009, 18:57
what does it say in the dwarf book? does it say "he may ride shieldbearers" or "he may be mounted on shieldbearers"?

sergio
04-03-2009, 19:07
i havent read the book for quite a while (trying to sell my dwarfs off after ~8 years), but i think most wording throughout the book is 'equipped', or other generic terminology

the only time the word 'mounted' comes into play in with the phrase in the description that's something along the lines of:

"...mounted on the shield, which is on a 25x50mm base"

Neckutter
04-03-2009, 19:24
god, i need to buy the dwarf armybook too? :(
i think i play enough of the other armies, its annoying when i dont have the dwarf book for dwarf questions.

MalusCalibur
04-03-2009, 19:29
Sergio has the right idea: the book states that the Lord is 'carried into battle by a pair of Shieldbearers' (both in the bestiary and the army list), and the only time the word 'mounted' is used is when referring to the size of the models base (20mmx40mm). The Shieldbearers are more closely associated with an 'upgrade' for the character rather than a mount-it is listed in the same paragraph as the Oathstone upgrade in the army list, and the Oathstone is certainly not a mount. Thusly, I'd say that the Lord does not count as mounted, and therefore gains the normal +2 Strength from a Great Weapon. He is, however, still immune to KB, because with Shieldbearers he becomes a single model with US3.


MalusCalibur

Neckutter
04-03-2009, 20:11
why would he be 25mmx50mm?
shouldnt he be 20mmx40mm?

if he is on a 25x50mm base it would make him more like a cavalry mount than the silly shield bearer thing he is now.

seriously who stands on a shield as a stable fighting platform? :P

MalusCalibur
04-03-2009, 20:25
It is 20mmx40mm.
Two standard Dwarf bases stuck together.


MalusCalibur

sergio
04-03-2009, 20:33
yeah i think it was 20x40. it was just two normal bases put together. i just spaced out and threw out some numbers.

anyways i didnt want to turn this into a RAW/RAI flamefest, because thats all it would boil down to. i was just wondering if GW made a ruling or not. thanks.

Harwammer
04-03-2009, 22:07
Unfortunately the shield bearer rules were written with 6th ed rules in mind (don't believe me? check out the rules for how it affects unit width), as such there may be no RAI over if it should follow +2S (foot) or +1S (mounted).

Dokushin
04-03-2009, 22:38
The shieldbearers don't have a separate profile, hence he's not mounted. All cavalry includes a statline for the mount -- no statline, no mount, and hence not mounted.

Don't really have a problem with that, really -- he's M3, ferrchrissakes, cut him some slack.

WLBjork
05-03-2009, 04:54
From the BRB page 55:

Sometimes the weapon has 2 different entries, one referring to the use of that weapon by infantry (and other models on foot), and the other referring to mounted models (cavalry and models riding monsters or chariots).



As the Lord of Shieldbearers isn't Cavalry or mounted on a monster or chariot, he must there fore be infantry/model on foot and thus gets +2S.

FredNo.1
05-03-2009, 05:26
+2 s, he is not mounted, nor is the high king.

eagletsi1
05-03-2009, 12:25
Even so just take the rune that gives +1 strength twice.

7 Strength. Easy

Lord Malorne
05-03-2009, 12:28
Even so just take the rune that gives +1 strength twice.

7 Strength. Easy

...Strength 6 my hasty friend.

sergio
05-03-2009, 12:46
Even so just take the rune that gives +1 strength twice.

7 Strength. Easy


he's only S4 base, so that'd give him S6. and it's also 40pts of magic. a GW is only 6 pts.

i'd rather spend those points on defensive runes.

eagletsi1
05-03-2009, 16:55
But I'm talking about taking the two runes and a Great Weapon.

I woundn't do it, but I face people that do alot.

This stops chariots dead in their tracks.

Does putting runes on a weapon make it no longer a great weapon?

Lord Malorne
05-03-2009, 16:58
Then its stops being a great weapon :D, needs to have a rune to keep being a great weapon (a master rune) and then one rune of cleaving, 2 don't work without that master rune ;).

Malorian
05-03-2009, 17:03
And at that point it's crazy expensive for a str 8 weapon (70 points isn't it?)

Maybe take the master rune that makes it a greatweapon, rune to add 1 str, and a rune to add an attack. Or better yet be like me and take two runes that add +1 str and the master rune that makes you cause D6 wounds ;)


Anyway, still doesn't answer this grey area question.

Just ask your opponent before the game and work it out so that everyone is on the same level. And if he doesn't let it be +2 str then he should at least let you reconfigure your lord.

theunwantedbeing
05-03-2009, 18:47
And if he doesn't let it be +2 str then he should at least let you reconfigure your lord.

Why?
Usually he'll be in combat and be wanting to swing his great weapon around when your opponent disagree's with you on him being mounted. At this point you'll no doubt know exactly what your opponent has in terms of armour and such, so being allowed to reconfigure him at this point seems a bit unfair.

That said, I have always allowed an opponent to change any items that they had illegally (so long as they werent over the limit) if they so wish. Usually they'll decline and say they'll remember for next time.

From a purely RAW standpoint, the Dwarf lord isnt on foot(infantry) as he's on sheildbearers. The Dwarf lord isnt cavalry(mounted) as he's not on a steed, or a monster, or a chariot.
So really he shouldn't be allowed to use the great weapon, as there are no rules for using it while on sheildbearers.

Same as how you can't use a lance when on foot, as there are no rules for it.

So either
A) he's mounted
B) he's on foot
C) he's neither so can't use the great weapon

D3 it :D!

Malorian
05-03-2009, 21:14
Why?
Usually he'll be in combat and be wanting to swing his great weapon around when your opponent disagree's with you on him being mounted. At this point you'll no doubt know exactly what your opponent has in terms of armour and such, so being allowed to reconfigure him at this point seems a bit unfair.

If you read the line before your quote you'll see I said to do this before the game starts. ;)

Grimtuff
05-03-2009, 23:31
As the Lord of Shieldbearers isn't Cavalry or mounted on a monster or chariot, he must there fore be infantry/model on foot and thus gets +2S.

Um, he's not on foot either.... ;)

Yippee! Now we have no rules for how he wields his GW! As he is neither mounted nor on foot.

Gazak Blacktoof
05-03-2009, 23:41
As I've argued before he's "mounted", it says so in the rules. He's also clearly not on foot as he quite demonstrably isn't, even from a background (non-rules) based perspective its clearly not a particularly stable platform and as others have pointed out he gains several benefits for a comparably low cost.

The shield bearers are a very good upgarde without fishing for any additional benefits.

Grimtuff
06-03-2009, 00:06
The shield bearers are a very good upgarde without fishing for any additional benefits.

Not least the "magical" immunity to KB. :eyebrows:

nosferatu1001
06-03-2009, 09:49
Agreed - the lord is clearly NOT on foot, same way a slaan on Palanquin couldnt be given the old Jaguar charm.

If you are not on foot, you are mounted as there is no 3rd category that I can find!

Hospitaler
06-03-2009, 09:55
The master rune and one rune of cleaving is only 45 pts for S7 (i think), but its basicallly still a GW, so is not worth it.
I play that the Lord gets +2 strength, unless my opponent specifically objetcs, which is not often.

Neckutter
06-03-2009, 11:12
its not something i care to argue about during a game. i always let the dwarves have their +2S

i do, however, belittle the dwarf player when their "greatweapon" has the master rune of ASF or the old 2 handweapons both with +1S, so that adds up to +2S and +1A.

nosferatu1001
06-03-2009, 13:45
How could you have 2 handweapons BOTH marked with runes? Runic weapons lose all original weapon characteristics, so they are no longer "handweapons" and therefore do not confer the 2 HW extra attack.

Also, both weapons couldn't have the same rune combination, so one would have to have 2 runes on it.

WLBjork
06-03-2009, 16:51
Agreed - the lord is clearly NOT on foot, same way a slaan on Palanquin couldnt be given the old Jaguar charm.

If you are not on foot, you are mounted as there is no 3rd category that I can find!

He's clearly not mounted, as he isn't Cavalry or on a Chariot/Monster. Therefore he is on foot.

theunwantedbeing
06-03-2009, 17:00
He's clearly not mounted, as he isn't Cavalry or on a Chariot/Monster. Therefore he is on foot.

He's clearly not on foot as he's standing on a sheild held up by 2 sheildbearers. Therefore he is mounted.

See what I did there?

Neckutter
06-03-2009, 19:43
How could you have 2 handweapons BOTH marked with runes? Runic weapons lose all original weapon characteristics, so they are no longer "handweapons" and therefore do not confer the 2 HW extra attack.

Also, both weapons couldn't have the same rune combination, so one would have to have 2 runes on it.

ok, sorry for the dripping sarcasm. the point is: some dwarf players like to mix and match things that are not allowed.

things that beardy dwarf players have tried to pull on me:
one opponent mounted his dwarf slayer lord on a 40mm base(the model was too big to fit on one 20mm base. it was the old 5th edition slayer model with the dragon head on the ground so he said he needed to model it bigger because it didnt fit), claiming that because he was touching 3 of my models he got an extra 6 attacks per the storm of chaos book. during the resultant challenge from my Tzeentch lord(Nichodemus the Iron Wolf *yay*) had to wither 4 combat rounds of a dwarf with 10 attacks, when the dwarf should have had only 5 attacks or so. what was even worse, is that i uber PWNED the dwarf even with the 10 attacks. yay tzeentch #2 spell.

another dwarf opponent at a tournament in phoenix who appearantly wins all the time: dwarf lord on shieldbearers with a great weapon with the rune of strike first.

another dwarf opponent locally in tucson: slayer hero with 2 HWs, one marked with +1S, one marked with +1S, and firery attacks.

wow, this is really off topic.


at any rate, the +1S or +2S shouldnt really be a big deal. since the dwarf book doesnt say he "rides" shieldbearers, or can "ride" shieldbearers into combat i think he should have +2S.

Lord Malorne
06-03-2009, 19:54
He's clearly not on foot as he's standing on a sheild held up by 2 sheildbearers. Therefore he is mounted.

See what I did there?

So my warriors mounted on 20mm bases are...mounted :eek:...:cries:.

Neckcutter...you can only have one runic weapon, the bigger base thing, haha I am surprised you allowed that.

Neckutter
06-03-2009, 19:56
So my warriors mounted on 20mm bases are...mounted :eek:...:cries:

yes, but just YOUR dwarves are mounted. everyone else's dwarves are on foot standing on 20mm bases.

:P

Gazak Blacktoof
06-03-2009, 21:53
So my warriors mounted on 20mm bases are...mounted

I remember a similar response in an earlier thread on this same topic and it remains, to this day, the most painfully silly statement I've ever seen in the rules sub-forum.

Lord Malorne
06-03-2009, 21:58
What about the spears are hand weapons statement :p.

That was a silly one.

So then, what extra mounted rules does he gain?

Gazak Blacktoof
06-03-2009, 22:11
The only rules for being mounted that I know of are the ones that apply to weapons, others refer to cavalry and to monsters, the shield bearers and lord aren't cavalry though.

He's already immune to KB and US 3, what else do you want?

stripsteak
06-03-2009, 22:15
there are not any inherent benefits to being mounted. the benefits offered to most mounted troops are do to them being cavalry. the +1 save is offered to cavalry consisting of a mount and a rider. or +2 if that mount is barded. this same bonus is not applied to riders of mountrous mounts(which have the benefit of riding a monster around) even though they are also mounted. or chariots even though they are also mounted, although chariots provide their own bonuses.

the dwarf lord on shield bearers does benefit from similar affects though provided in his own ruless.
+2 armor save similar to a barded steed
increased US similar to a mounted model.
extra attacks from his bearers, similar to the attacks of the mount that can be made in addition to the riders attacks.

FaHeMan89
07-03-2009, 02:21
Don't really have a problem with that, really -- he's M3, ferrchrissakes, cut him some slack.

Within 8 inches of the enemy hes faster than elves... so no

Dokushin
07-03-2009, 04:06
Within 8 inches of the enemy hes faster than elves... so no

:D Do we really want to have this discussion right now?

The shieldbearers thing really doesn't matter, but I do think that they would have stated that he counts as being mounted if it were the case.