PDA

View Full Version : WoC Monstrous Cavalry to big a risk?



thisisntnotjt
27-07-2010, 15:45
Hey guys, I'm looking to start a Khorne WoC army, mostly because it was my main army back in 6th ed. and it looks like it's finally somewhat viable again.

In any case, I was looking through rules and found that my lords and exalteds on juggernaughts can get picked out with shooting, namely cannons and stone throwers. This, on top of how much more accurate those weapons have become with the new edition, leads me to believe that taking these mounts is just way to big of a risk and, therefore, useless. Any thoughts on this?

Odin
27-07-2010, 15:48
Hey guys, I'm looking to start a Khorne WoC army, mostly because it was my main army back in 6th ed. and it looks like it's finally somewhat viable again.

In any case, I was looking through rules and found that my lords and exalteds on juggernaughts can get picked out with shooting, namely cannons and stone throwers. This, on top of how much more accurate those weapons have become with the new edition, leads me to believe that taking these mounts is just way to big of a risk and, therefore, useless. Any thoughts on this?

I think a Jugger rider needs one of the 4+ ward save items. If he has that, he's still vulnerable against Empire but stands a decent enough chance. Not to forget that there will be other targets and they can't shoot at everybody. I mainly seem to use my Shaggoth as a fire magnet - he will die so that other units get into combat unscathed!

Lord of the End Times
27-07-2010, 16:00
I agree with Odin. One interesting idea I read in the 8th edition WoC tactica was using trolls as a cannonball screen, as if the cannonball doesn't kill them then it is stopped. The trolls could then use the lords leadership for their stupidity tests too and they have similar movement values. Seems like it could be a nice synergy to me.
Any thoughts?

logan054
27-07-2010, 16:03
I think a Jugger rider needs one of the 4+ ward save items. If he has that, he's still vulnerable against Empire but stands a decent enough chance. Not to forget that there will be other targets and they can't shoot at everybody. I mainly seem to use my Shaggoth as a fire magnet - he will die so that other units get into combat unscathed!

Juggers are cavalry, its clearly states this in big bold letters in the army book

Volker the Mad Fiddler
27-07-2010, 16:14
Juggers are cavalry, its clearly states this in big bold letters in the army book

Except that the 8th edition rulebook classifies juggernaughts as Mountrous Beasts which when ridden become Monstrous Cavalry. As these classifications are new, it is hard to say the army book overrides the rulebook in this case.

thisisntnotjt
27-07-2010, 16:15
Yes, that...

So, they're ok if I have a screen and/or a 4+ save?

Would it be better if I just kept him on foot? It seems like too big an investment otherwise.

Lord of the End Times
27-07-2010, 16:17
Juggers are cavalry, its clearly states this in big bold letters in the army book

There are several threads arguing this point, it can be argued either way. I think it is fairly clear that Juggernauts are intended to be monstrous cav, but as the wording stands it is not 100% clear cut. The above is of course assuming that the eventual ruling goes monstrous cav.

logan054
27-07-2010, 16:18
I suggest you read the WoC FAQ again or just read my quote which is a copy paste from the FAQ :P


Note that older versions of our army books do not list the Troop Type for each model. If this is the case with your army book, then you can find the model's Troop Type in the reference section at the back of the Warhammer rulebook.

Then i suggest you read the bold writing at the top of page 54 of the WoC book, AB overrides BRB overrides we would be getting 5pts enchanted shields



There are several threads arguing this point, it can be argued either way. I think it is fairly clear that Juggernauts are intended to be monstrous cav, but as the wording stands it is not 100% clear cut. The above is of course assuming that the eventual ruling goes monstrous cav.

it cant see how unless you haven't bothered to read the FAQ properly

Chaos Undecided
27-07-2010, 16:20
Well the FAQ says to refer to the back of the BRB where the army book doesnt identify troop type as in most of the older books but as the Warriors book clearly states they are normal cavalry but on non standard bases I think its something that could go either way, perhaps something to agree before you start a game with your opponent?

Edit - beaten the punch by above.

logan054
27-07-2010, 16:23
How could it go either way? im failing to see the logic, you have a FAQ that tells you use the classification if they are not present in your army book, you have a army book that gives you the classification, what am i missing here? some rule about base size which the AB tells you they are a exception from..

Lord of the End Times
27-07-2010, 16:33
How could it go either way? im failing to see the logic, you have a FAQ that tells you use the classification if they are not present in your army book, you have a army book that gives you the classification, what am i missing here? some rule about base size which the AB tells you they are a exception from..

You're not missing anything, it's more a case of why would they classify the Juggernaut as a monstrous beast in the BRB (which is newer than the army book) and use it as the specific example if it was not intended as such.
Anyway, this point has been argued to death already, and everyone will not agree until it is FAQed conclusively. What do you think about the original question assuming (suspend beliefs for a moment) juggernaut = monstrous cav?

logan054
27-07-2010, 16:39
I thought the FAQ was pretty conclusive, you use the unit types in your book, your only use the unit types in the BRB if your army book dosnt include them, i see nothing that indicates the BRB ovrrides the AB, just as the HoC MoK overrode the rules for frenzy and steeds.

thisisntnotjt
27-07-2010, 16:42
I'm going to go read the FAQ in a sec, but if Logan054 is right then that's pretty incredible, right? Cavalry can't be singled out?

Lord of the End Times
27-07-2010, 16:57
I'm going to go read the FAQ in a sec, but if Logan054 is right then that's pretty incredible, right? Cavalry can't be singled out?

Yes, it would make them rather awesome, just seems rather strange to me. Stomp is quite nice but probably not worth being singled out. My chaos lord on juggernaut is my favourite general so I am not partisan against them in the slightest. Still, no doubt the argument will continue, anyway I have stated my opinion so I shall cease to argue the point.

logan054
27-07-2010, 17:01
I'm going to go read the FAQ in a sec, but if Logan054 is right then that's pretty incredible, right? Cavalry can't be singled out?

I would imagine it uses the same logic as SoA, the main problem is that people seem to be confusing the WoC jugger and the DoC jugger, these are different units that follow different rules. As the example has a bloodletter and the WoC jugger may not be ridden by a bloodletter they are not the same unit unless the WoC one is going to gain magical attacks and KB..

shartmatau
27-07-2010, 17:09
well its obvious that there is contention in the rule. The rulebook classified all of the daemonic mounts available to WoC, whereas the statement in the FAQ is in fact a blanket statement printed in every FAQ. I would look to the Rulebook for this question because the source of contention is a generic statement.

Another line of reasoning is that while they have their own rules all monstrous cav also are cav and follow the rules of regular cav as well. I'm ok with it either way because both classifications have positive and negative things associated with them. I'd be happy to play anyone as long as they let me know how they play it before hand.

shakedown47
27-07-2010, 17:19
I'll be counting mine as Monstrous Cav. Sure they can be singled out but as has already been said your opponent can't shoot at everything. I like the bonus of KB immunity, makes up for being an easier target IMO.

Jericho
27-07-2010, 17:20
I'm not a huge fan of the idea, but I think the argument about all the WoC mounts being simple cavalry doesn't hold much water in 8th.

The FAQ certainly needs to be more clear, but the rule of thumb seems to be "see the BRB for unit types" and the BRB clearly indicates that these mounts aren't standard cavalry mounts. The Palanquin is clearly infantry for crying out loud, why would they put that in the BRB if it was still a cavalry mount?

thisisntnotjt
27-07-2010, 17:26
I just took a look at the FAQ, and I have to agree with Jericho. The FAQ is clearly urging the reader to reference the BRB. So the Character on the Jugger is Monstrous Cavalry. Too bad... I'll still play both just to see how in danger he really is.

logan054
27-07-2010, 17:26
Well you have 3 ways to look at it, two of which are RAI and one RAW

a) The intend is that characters on things such as jugger do not get LOS rule, from a buisness point if view you saying its intended that GW dont want people to buy a 20 model? WoC have how many monstrous cavalry units again? Dragin ogres are monstrous beasts. This would also ignore the idea of AB overrides the BRB, the FAQ actually state when this isnt the case.

b) The intend is that people still buy a 20 model, still but chaos knights (as they have been nerfed) and that infact juggers get a LOS roll

c) RAW, if your going with this then you ignore opinions on blanket statements in every FAQ as it is written in the FAQ, it clearly states you use if classification in the army book and it is infact cavalry.

Now seeing as none of us know the intent of the rule and i think most people would agree that they woudlnt intend for people not to be able to use juggers (which is a pretty new mold and 20) which makes the most sense.


I just took a look at the FAQ, and I have to agree with Jericho. The FAQ is clearly urging the reader to reference the BRB. So the Character on the Jugger is Monstrous Cavalry. Too bad... I'll still play both just to see how in danger he really is.

I thought it urged the reader to use the BRB when the AB didnt have a reference.



I'm not a huge fan of the idea, but I think the argument about all the WoC mounts being simple cavalry doesn't hold much water in 8th.

The FAQ certainly needs to be more clear, but the rule of thumb seems to be "see the BRB for unit types" and the BRB clearly indicates that these mounts aren't standard cavalry mounts. The Palanquin is clearly infantry for crying out loud, why would they put that in the BRB if it was still a cavalry mount?

How does the FAQ need to be more clear? why is the palanquin clearly infantry? it wasnt in 7th? is it not a mount? do you not sit on it and get carried around the field?

ChrisIronBrow
27-07-2010, 17:27
I'm not a huge fan of the idea, but I think the argument about all the WoC mounts being simple cavalry doesn't hold much water in 8th.

The FAQ certainly needs to be more clear, but the rule of thumb seems to be "see the BRB for unit types" and the BRB clearly indicates that these mounts aren't standard cavalry mounts. The Palanquin is clearly infantry for crying out loud, why would they put that in the BRB if it was still a cavalry mount?

Quite frankly what they meant doesn't matter.

It's 100% clear that WoC Juggers are Cav. The BRB says that AB overrule BRB, the AB says it's cav. Argument over.

They can change the rule, by changing the WoC FaQ, which they have done twice already, both times leaving the Juggers as Cav.

theorox
27-07-2010, 17:29
Chaos Lord+MoK+Armour of Destiny+Chaos Runesword+Juggernaut+shield+whatever gifts of the gods you want.

385p+Gifts.

7 WS9 Str6 I7 Attacks, 1+ AS 4+ Ward, Causes fear, MR1, 2 WS5 Str5 I2 Attacks+A str 5 stomp. THAT is terrifyingly awesome! :D Might have to buy a pack of those new Bloodcrushers just for converting one of these in the future! ...Or two! :D

Have you considered an Exalted on Juggernaut? Just give him a flail or something, and he's set! Could be very effective, add him to a unit of knights and let the killing begin!

Theo

thisisntnotjt
27-07-2010, 17:32
Why does it list a different unit type for them, then? Clearly they wanted this new unit type to replace the old, since Monstrous cavalry didn't last edition.

logan054
27-07-2010, 17:33
Quite frankly what they meant doesn't matter.

It's 100% clear that WoC Juggers are Cav. The BRB says that AB overrule BRB, the AB says it's cav. Argument over.

They can change the rule, by changing the WoC FaQ, which they have done twice already, both times leaving the Juggers as Cav.

Its seems that people totally forget the fact other FAQ's have Q&A that state the AB overrides the BRB as well, the mind really does boggle at such things.


Why does it list a different unit type for them, then? Clearly they wanted this new unit type to replace the old, since Monstrous cavalry didn't last edition.

So are you saying AB dosnt override BRB then? so then you would be saying that SM dont get to reroll hits with ASF regardless of their FAQ stating the SoA overrides the BRB rules for ASF, i shall enjoy telling HE players that their FAQ is wrong as well, like i said you assuming you know the intent which none of us clearly do, i see you ignored my point of why would GW make juggers unusable against shooting armies as intended rule seeing as they fixed them last edition by making them 1 wound, which side has the most amount of logic at the end of the day?

thisisntnotjt
27-07-2010, 17:34
Where does it state that the AB over-rides the BRB? I just haven't seen it, sorry.

shartmatau
27-07-2010, 17:36
We may not know intent but we have a very good guide for it, the whole reference section in the back of the book. The statement in the FAQ does indeed say to use this reference when not classification is not given in the AB. The RaW of it is indeed plain old cav. The intent I see as obvious because if you read through the WoC reference in the RBRB all of the daemonic mounts are included and in fact they are not all the same (MB, WB, and In among the 5 daemonic mounts). I will take a specific reference over a blanket statement any day. In fact I would go so far as to say the FAQ is the new piece of rules that is missing the errata of 'ignore this sentence' and that it will most likely be included whenever they do another update.

logan054
27-07-2010, 17:39
Where does it state that the AB over-rides the BRB? I just haven't seen it, sorry.
I have given the example of SoA rule, go read the HE FAQ, i think i even posted that in this topic


We may not know intent but we have a very good guide for it

So your logic is that

a) they intended to break daemonic steeds again after fixing them
b) that AB dosnt override BRB (like with SoA an ASF with GW)
c) that GW dosnt want people buying juggers or damonic steeds?
d) that the FAQ is wrong even if other FAQ's suggest AB overrides BRB

I would sack my guide if i was you mate, seriously mate....

thisisntnotjt
27-07-2010, 17:43
The SoA says that the AB takes precedence "in this situation". This is not the same thing that's happening with the Juggernaught.

logan054
27-07-2010, 17:48
The SoA says that the AB takes precedence "in this situation". This is not the same thing that's happening with the Juggernaught.

so does the FAQ on unit classifications ;)

shartmatau
27-07-2010, 17:53
a) they intended to break daemonic steeds again after fixing them
b) that AB dosnt override BRB (like with SoA an ASF with GW)
c) that GW dosnt want people buying juggers or damonic steeds?
d) that the FAQ is wrong even if other FAQ's suggest AB overrides BRB

I would sack my guide if i was you mate, seriously mate....


That is exactly what I am saying. The Rulebook and the FAQ tell you to use the very clear reference in the back of the rulebook for classifications.

The Army Book says they are cavalry. And the rulebook says that all of these daemonic mounts are not only not cavalry but different from each other.

Now what makes more sense in this situation. The author of the rulebook got 5 different unit entries incorrect in the reference section of the rulebook or the author of the FAQ forgot to add 'ignore this sentence' in the daemonic mounts description? Seems very clear to me.

Lungboy
27-07-2010, 17:54
The Palanquin is clearly infantry for crying out loud, why would they put that in the BRB if it was still a cavalry mount?

Uh, going by the BRB, the Palanquin is still cavalry when ridden as it fits the description of a one-wound mount on p104.


Where does it state that the AB over-rides the BRB? I just haven't seen it, sorry.

Main rulebook, page 11: "On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a Warhammer Armies book. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the Warhammer Armies book always takes precedence."

logan054
27-07-2010, 18:00
So you saying GW dosnt want people to buy juggers or daemonic steeds for their chaos army because they cant use them? That is a assumption, an assumption that ignores other examples of AB overriding BRB. This still ignores the fact the FAQ states you only use the information for unit classifications in the BRB if you army book dosnt include them, maybe he did forget, who knows, maybe they decided "hey lets break daemonic steeds after fixing them", who knows, that would just be second guessing and well making assumptions.

*hugs lungboy"

Jericho
27-07-2010, 18:02
That was my initial reaction to this whole debacle as well. The BRB says 1 wound mount is generally the defining characteristic of regular cavalry, but the bestiary section quite clearly defined the mounts as different, specific types.

And the FAQ/errata for the bestiary section doesn't mention changing any of the WoC mounts back to cav.

Lungboy
27-07-2010, 18:05
Until they re-FAQ it, it once again comes down to RAW (AB trumps BRB and all mounts are cavalry) vs probable RAI (use BRB troop types and modify them according to the characters on mounts section).

logan054
27-07-2010, 18:09
Until they re-FAQ it, it once again comes down to RAW (AB trumps BRB and all mounts are cavalry) vs possible RAI (use BRB troop types and modify them according to the characters on mounts section).

I changes that for you :P i dont believe for 1 second that its intended that you cant use daemonic mounts in a WoC army.

shartmatau
27-07-2010, 18:11
first of all, i already said that the RaW of this isn't in question. I even said I am ok with people playing it either way as long as I know how they want to play it.

What I am saying is that the intent is clear to me. A forgotten errata is far more likely than multiple mistakes in the same reference section.

lastly, I really don't agree with your assumption that MC can't be used. You have assumed that because something is a monstrous cavalry model it is destined to die and will never be seen again. And your making an really odd jump to people purchasing models which frankly has nothing to do with rules and you could not actually predict.

Lungboy
27-07-2010, 18:12
If the BRB is in fact correct, why would you not be able to use Damonic mounts?

logan054
27-07-2010, 18:26
Well unusable perhaps not, but very risky considering the points cost of the character ontop, it will be just like 6th again when the only mounts you will see will be chariots, barded steeds or flying creatures. 7th addressed the issues with daemonic steeds (part of which was no LoS roll), so to me your assumption would be that they are going to go back and unfix this? this assumption would also say the FAQ is wrong, the AB is wrong and that pretty much the rule that lungboy pointed out (well got the page number for) is wrong.

Personally im finding that abit of stretch, i cant imagine why, then again my opinion on RAI is very different than yours, its just happen i think RAW supports my opinion as RAI, of course the assumption we can make about the why the WoC daemonic steeds are lists as MB is because they just copy pasted them over from the daemons section and forgot to edit them, is that less likely?

shartmatau
27-07-2010, 18:34
fair enough. and if i were to play you I would be fine with that. I think you should be ready for this being changed though, and that's my opinion.

Also its worth mentioning that even as Cavalry your going to need bigger units to hide them in anyways because they won't get that LOS! without RnF.

logan054
27-07-2010, 18:40
fair enough. and if i were to play you I would be fine with that. I think you should be ready for this being changed though, and that's my opinion.

Do not even joke about that, i was annoyed enough when they split chaos into 3 books, it would be like GW is trying to take away every model i like using in my WoC army!

shartmatau
27-07-2010, 18:45
you could always use your juggernaught as a chariot :)

Lex
27-07-2010, 18:46
I may be remembering incorrectly as I don't have my book in front of me, but the Warriors of Chaos book does not list "Troop type". It infact lists the Juggernaut's "Unit Type" of "Cavalry". Therefore, you must refer to the VBRB for the "Troop type". How's that for RAW?

logan054
27-07-2010, 18:48
you could always use your juggernaught as a chariot :)

Your just trying to make me cry arnt you! :cries:


I may be remembering incorrectly as I don't have my book in front of me, but the Warriors of Chaos book does not list "Troop type". It infact lists the Juggernaut's "Unit Type" of "Cavalry". Therefore, you must refer to the VBRB for the "Troop type". How's that for RAW?

Id say get the AB in front of you before trying to be clever :P

Jericho
27-07-2010, 18:49
Lex, if you PM me an address I swear on my Collector's Edition 8th Ed Rulebook that I will mail you a cookie. That made my day :D

ChrisIronBrow
27-07-2010, 18:49
Its seems that people totally forget the fact other FAQ's have Q&A that state the AB overrides the BRB as well, the mind really does boggle at such things.



To be honest, I don't think that's the problem at all. I think many don't like what the rules say, and are trying to convince everyone else that we should play it the way they want. This happens often on Warseer I've noticed.

When I don't like what a rule says, I discuss with my opponent how we should handle it, not try to swindle him into using my made up rules.

Jericho
27-07-2010, 18:53
Agreed, the Most Important Rule is always in effect. Discussing in a friendly fashion and not taking things too seriously is the rule of thumb. When there's a case of confusion as to what the rules say/what they actually mean/whatever then we have to try and keep our greedy little feelings in check and not be total *******.

For now I don't feel comfortable taking Daemonic Steeds/Juggers/whatever and trying to get Look out, sir! rolls. That doesn't mean that you can't talk to your opponent about it. Go ahead! When someone turns into a rules lawyer and tries to make a hazy issue entirely clear-cut (in a way that conveniently boosts their army) I really don't react well.

Even if it screws my army over, too.

logan054
27-07-2010, 18:53
To be honest, I don't think that's the problem at all. I think many don't like what the rules say, and are trying to convince everyone else that we should play it the way they want. This happens often on Warseer I've noticed.

When I don't like what a rule says, I discuss with my opponent how we should handle it, not try to swindle him into using my made up rules.

They are just the same in person, i have played a few people from warseer in my time, beer is not advised during the game ;) I just noticed your sig, awesome stuff, put that in bold and your onto a winner ;) maybe even a bright color or something!

Lex
27-07-2010, 19:14
Your just trying to make me cry arnt you! :cries:



Id say get the AB in front of you before trying to be clever :P

Cleverness or not aside, I did notice something else related to the OP's original question. It hasn't been stated what type of unit he is putting the Juggy rider with. If he is using an infantry army, then it matters not whether it is cav or monstrous cav. If fact I would think he would prefer the monstrous ruling so he is immune to KB. That being said if he's placing it with a cavalry unit (assuming its a cav model) then how long is he truly going to benefit from "Look out, Sir!"? If he's thinking of using a 5 man unit of Knights w/ champion, then he still doesn't benefit from Lo,S!. Characters of different troop types than their units don't get "singled out" per se. They lose the benefit of Lo,S! for template weapons. If the number of wounds caused by shooting is equal to or more than the number of models then he must be assigned a wound. Realisticly, the biggest threats (assuming decent armor and ward) are going to be cannons and the hole on a ST template and template spells (which his MR and nasty stat line "should" save him from). Weigh that against immune to KB (if MC), increased AS, increased mobility, fear (meh),and extra high strength attacks and you'll have your answer. I think either choice is valid whether he is cav or monstous cav.

Vaktathi
27-07-2010, 19:26
In case it matters to anyone in this thread, I emailed GW about whether the AB or the BRB took precedence here.

Their response was ""I am not quite sure that I could explain this without it getting lengthy and confusing, so call us"

I'll be calling them in a bit to see what they say.

EDIT: just got off the phone with Mr.Swan (GW US customer service supervisor), who is about as official as anyone I could possibly get a hold of in my position.

His response was, with Daemons of Chaos Juggers would be Monstrous Cavalry, but with Warriors of Chaos Juggernauts would be simply Cavalry due to the declaration on page 54.

If anyone else wants to call about that try 1-800-394-4263.

thisisntnotjt
27-07-2010, 22:15
That's extremely interesting news, Vaktathi. I'll be keeping that number for future reference.

Lex gets back to the original point, though. It really doesn't matter if it's Cav or MC in an infantry unit, since it can get singled out with either. It appears that the only way to keep the model viable is to give it a 4+ ward. Cannons and stone throwers still scare the crap out of me, though...

Lex
27-07-2010, 22:37
That's extremely interesting news, Vaktathi. I'll be keeping that number for future reference.

Lex gets back to the original point, though. It really doesn't matter if it's Cav or MC in an infantry unit, since it can get singled out with either. It appears that the only way to keep the model viable is to give it a 4+ ward. Cannons and stone throwers still scare the crap out of me, though...

I would say that's a fair assessment. I don't run WoC currently, although I have a great deal of experience with them. My current army is Skaven and I'm going through the same back and forth monologue over a Warlord on a Bonebreaker vs. a War Litter. I have decided to go with the Bonebreaker but only because I am taking the 4+ ward save. I will also take the Charmed shield. With the speed at which combat occurs now, I think a 3+/4+ and 2+ ignore first hit will give me a fair shot at reaching cc. Also, I think the decision is a bit easier for me as the Bonebreaker gives the Warlord an extra wound as well.

thisisntnotjt
28-07-2010, 15:12
I just thought of another downside, in that the jugger displaces 3 warriors (presumably khorne), which, with those three having 5 total (3 in the front and 2 support) and the jugger having 2, this takes away 3 attacks. This may or may not prove fatal. Any thoughts?

Jericho
28-07-2010, 16:00
Putting big mounts in Warriors is crazy now, for sure. Marauders, not so much :) Missing a few S3 attacks isn't the end of the world.

Lex
28-07-2010, 16:38
I just thought of another downside, in that the jugger displaces 3 warriors (presumably khorne), which, with those three having 5 total (3 in the front and 2 support) and the jugger having 2, this takes away 3 attacks. This may or may not prove fatal. Any thoughts?

As I intimated earlier, your placement of the character and the purpose of your units will determine whether it's fatal. As Jericho said, in marauders its not an issue, and in someways beneficial. Fewer swings against flimsy guys could help. If your character on juggy is set up like a brick and placed in a unit of warriors of Tzeentch with Blasted Standard to provide a big time anvil, then still not a bad deal to place him there. However, if you've got a warrior unit equipped with halberds and your aim is casualties, then foot character is the way to go. What you really should do is post a list of what you think your army will look like. Better advice could then be provided.

MrMiscast
28-07-2010, 18:04
Why not give the jugger rider a Crimson Armour of Dargan, if cannons and stone throwers worries you.

Conjoy
01-08-2010, 11:45
Page 54 of the AB does not define Troop Type. It makes a reference to the use of Daemonic mounts where base size was an issue.
Troop Type is what is at issue here - are those mounts defined as any Troop Type in the AB and the answer is 'no'. So the BRB must apply.
This does not mean the end of Juggers or any of the other Daemonic Mounts, it just means that if you want LoS, then you need to put the character with the appropriate troop type, Dragon Ogres in the case of Juggers, etc etc.

Sloeberjong
01-08-2010, 15:04
I don't see an unit type listed in AB...

Nowhere in de AB does it say "Juggernaut, Troop Type: WB"

By the way...according to your logic Juggernauts in de Deamons of Chaos book are also simply cavalry...because that AB states that Juggernauts are cavalry mounts in almost exactly the same words.

Yes there is some reference to cavalry mounts, but nowhere is a " Troop Type" listed so see the BRB: Juggernaut, Troop Type: MB => With character MC => also RAW.

Besides, "Cavalry Mount" is not listed under Troop Types...there is something about Cavalry Mounts in the character section but that is really kind of weird since cavalry mounts have no "Troop Type". If a character is riding a "War Beast" it follows the rules for "Cavalry" though...

Texhnolyze
01-08-2010, 22:04
I don't see an unit type listed in AB...

Nowhere in de AB does it say "Juggernaut, Troop Type: WB"

By the way...according to your logic Juggernauts in de Deamons of Chaos book are also simply cavalry...because that AB states that Juggernauts are cavalry mounts in almost exactly the same words.

Yes there is some reference to cavalry mounts, but nowhere is a " Troop Type" listed so see the BRB: Juggernaut, Troop Type: MB => With character MC => also RAW.

Besides, "Cavalry Mount" is not listed under Troop Types...there is something about Cavalry Mounts in the character section but that is really kind of weird since cavalry mounts have no "Troop Type". If a character is riding a "War Beast" it follows the rules for "Cavalry" though...

Wrong, the Deamons of Chaos juggernauts are not Cavalry. The DoC AB does not even state that they are anymore, it has already been FAQ'd.

So now, why didn't they FAQ the WoC book at the same time? Because it's Intended for the WoC deamonic mounts to be cavalry. Unlike DoC, WoC do not have any MC units, why would they make one character mount into a MC?

logan054
01-08-2010, 22:12
I don't see an unit type listed in AB...

Nowhere in de AB does it say "Juggernaut, Troop Type: WB"

By the way...according to your logic Juggernauts in de Deamons of Chaos book are also simply cavalry...because that AB states that Juggernauts are cavalry mounts in almost exactly the same words.

Yes there is some reference to cavalry mounts, but nowhere is a " Troop Type" listed so see the BRB: Juggernaut, Troop Type: MB => With character MC => also RAW.

Besides, "Cavalry Mount" is not listed under Troop Types...there is something about Cavalry Mounts in the character section but that is really kind of weird since cavalry mounts have no "Troop Type". If a character is riding a "War Beast" it follows the rules for "Cavalry" though...

You know in the rules section you have a debate on this, the topic has been locked, best bet is to wait on a update to the FAQ, once this is done then we will know exactly what the risk of using cool model is.


Wrong, the Deamons of Chaos juggernauts are not Cavalry. The DoC AB does not even state that they are anymore, it has already been FAQ'd.

So now, why didn't they FAQ the WoC book at the same time? Because it's Intended for the WoC deamonic mounts to be cavalry. Unlike DoC, WoC do not have any MC units, why would they make one character mount into a MC?

basically the whole debate on this around to forms of logic, game play logic and model logic, hopefully a updated faq will resolve the issue