PDA

View Full Version : Arabyan Carpet



MagneticFreak
27-09-2010, 20:05
Alright. I know this might have been discussed several time, but can a Slann take an Arabyan Carpet?

I have the same argument over and over with some of my friend gamers, but we cannot decide if it is or not allowed.

theunwantedbeing
27-09-2010, 20:17
Seems to be a requirement to be on foot, slann isnt on foot despite being infantry.

MagneticFreak
27-09-2010, 20:24
Agreed, but the meaning of ''on foot'' refers to the absence of a steed of some kind. I see the palanquin as being some kind of sculpt extravagance, not a proper steed. No mention of the Slann not being on foot exists anywhere.

I will not use it, I just find it hard to justify this completely.

sulla
28-09-2010, 04:55
Agreed, but the meaning of ''on foot'' refers to the absence of a steed of some kind. .? That's not what 'On foot' means to me. Why would they say infantry and on foot, if they both mean the same thing? There are two conditions. The Slann only meets one. Like how you need to hit in the flank and have at least 2 ranks at least 5 wide to disrupt enemy ranks.

You seem to have made your mind up anyway though. I suggest you head over to warhammer.org.uk. From memory, there are a few players over there who voiciferously argue your side of the argument...

Atrahasis
28-09-2010, 08:59
So if I model my Imperial Captain to be sitting on a Magic Carpet, he isn't on foot so can't take the Arabyan Carpet?

Kalandros
28-09-2010, 09:08
Slan has the Hover rule, so its not on foot! :D

Atrahasis
28-09-2010, 09:19
The Slann has no such rule.

theunwantedbeing
28-09-2010, 12:45
Seems he is on foot afterall, despite not being as he's on that palanquinn.

He wasn't "on foot" last edition due to it, but that ruling seems to have disappeared for this edition. So he can indeed take that flying carpet.
I guess that's the reasoning GW took when disallowing him from casting transformation of Khadon, hopefully it'll be changed(same as the steam tank being immune to pit of shades, that's a carry over as well that's still there).

Definitely worth modelling it with him well sunk into the thing, although they may change it so he can't be on it.

MagneticFreak
28-09-2010, 15:18
The main argument for the people who are against is the fact that in the latest FAQ, the slann is not allowed to case the transformation of kadon spell. In the description os the spell, it says that only models on foot may use it. This ''sort of'' specifies that the Slann isnt ion foot.

Atrahasis
28-09-2010, 16:04
That's like arguing the Steam Tank is immune to magic because it can't be affected by Pit of Shades.

In other words, it's a baseless and silly argument.

MagneticFreak
28-09-2010, 16:08
Then what is the purpose behind the proscription?

Im trying to play the devils advocate, because I really want to use the carpet myself. Most players I faced oppose to it, and I just look like a jerk trying to abuse the rules.

Even if I get your arguments, most peoples answer is a ''no''.

Atrahasis
28-09-2010, 16:11
We can't possibly guess what the purpose is. Perhaps it's to stop a Slann becoming a dragon with a 4+ ward save. Who knows?

The fact of the matter is, you might as well argue that he is forbidden because he's too old to be mucking about with transmogrification, or that he can';t cast it because he isn't a wizard. There's as much evidence for that as there is for preventing him from using a magic item because of a wholly unrelated answer about a spell.

diggerydoom
28-09-2010, 17:01
I thought the reason for banning the slann from using transformation was due to the unique deployment rules he has with temple guard-not that he was not on foot.

Atrahasis
28-09-2010, 17:27
You don't have to buy Temple Guard, so that's another non-reason for the Q&A.

Kevlar
28-09-2010, 17:37
Is a skaven warlord on warlitter "on foot"? He is still infantry. What about dwarven shield bearers. Same thing. Nurgle gets a palanquin too do they not? If all these are classed as infantry they should be able to buy the carpet too, if the slann can.

Blkc57
28-09-2010, 18:00
Flying Shield bearers on a carpet. That model would be awesome to make.

Atrahasis
28-09-2010, 18:22
Is a skaven warlord on warlitter "on foot"? He is still infantry. What about dwarven shield bearers. Same thing. Nurgle gets a palanquin too do they not? If all these are classed as infantry they should be able to buy the carpet too, if the slann can.
All of the examples you give have separate statlines and are bought as mounts.

"infantry" doesn't mean the same as "on foot"; that much I agree -- monsters and other unit types are "on foot" without being infantry. However, being traditionally modeled as sitting on a throne is not the same as having a rule that says you're not on foot.

decker_cky
29-09-2010, 05:05
And yet it talks about his palanquin as part of the Guardians rule, doesn't it? "In battle, the slann rides upon his floating stone palanquin".

Kudzu
29-09-2010, 06:10
And yet it talks about his palanquin as part of the Guardians rule, doesn't it? "In battle, the slann rides upon his floating stone palanquin".

Fluff and rules aren't the same thing. The palanquin doesn't have a separate statline so it has no bearing on topic.

My Slann is always safely tucked into a TG unit, so I'll never use it, but there is absolutely no reason why a Slann shouldn't be able to use the carpet from a rules standpoint.

Rixitotal
29-09-2010, 09:12
The only justification for the slann not being on foot are: fluff, the model and the inability to use Khadon.

Model: There are lots of models that are not literally walking on the ground but are still on foot. HE, DE and WE mages spring to mind. They all still count as being on foot.

Fluff: Think of it as a flying palanquin, or he just ditches the palanquin before the game. Many magic items require a bit of thought to apply to a specific model. Warrior priests can not wear helmets in their religion, but can still take magic helmets.

Khadon: GW has not given a reason for this ruling. And it is a massive pity as Warhammer Forge have created a toad dragon model. :cries:
While we can suspect the reason for the ruling in the FAQ, one does not exist except in the mind of the staff member who wrote the FAQ. But as they have not said anything more about it or given justification, the only affect of the ruling is that the slann can not use that one spell.

Rules: A model is mounted if it has a mount. Slann definitely has no mount. Every other model is presumed, by default, to be on foot if it has no mount or another ruling saying it is not on foot, the Slann follows the same rules as everyone else.

The slann is infantry, the slann is on foot as far as the rules are concerned. Fluff and sculpts have no bearing on rulings.
Slann can use the Arabian Carpet as long as there are no temple guard in the army.

Rixi

Synnister
29-09-2010, 09:24
I personally don't understand the transformation ruling in the FAQ. But rule wise I see nothing stopping a slann from riding on a carpet.

Dutch_Digger
29-09-2010, 10:02
Model: There are lots of models that are not literally walking on the ground but are still on foot. HE, DE and WE mages spring to mind. They all still count as being on foot.


+1

If you can find a way to make his palanquin look like an arab carpet or floating disc that goes faster than the standard fat-guy palanquin, then i would definetly not argue it :D

Rixitotal
29-09-2010, 10:42
The Khadon ruling is a inconsistency. It really is a mystery why its in there. it was added in the FAQ update 1.1 and has definitely led to far more questions than answers.

Personally i didn't manage to get a game in with my immune to none magic, 4+ ward save fire dragon. and for that i shall never forgive my self. ;)


If you can find a way to make his palanquin look like an arab carpet or floating disc that goes faster than the standard fat-guy palanquin, then i would definetly not argue it

Slann are pretty pimp, i see no reason for them not to pimp their rides. Hes even got a lil skink riding shot-gun.

Col. Frost
29-09-2010, 10:54
The Slann's palaquin is used because the slann dosn't want to touch the ground, it ditches the palaquin when riding a Steg.

Now, this can be read two ways:

A - It ditches the palaquin and uses the carpet instead (same as when riding the steg)

B - As it cannot touch the ground, it cannot be considered 'on foot' and so cannot ride the carpet anyway.

Shizzbam
29-09-2010, 17:55
Personally I'd be inclined to let my opponent take it for his Slann so long as he'd modeled his Slann to be riding a magic carpet, just for the sheer lunacy of seeing a magic toad zipping about on an enchanted rug.

decker_cky
29-09-2010, 17:57
Fluff and rules aren't the same thing. The palanquin doesn't have a separate statline so it has no bearing on topic.

My Slann is always safely tucked into a TG unit, so I'll never use it, but there is absolutely no reason why a Slann shouldn't be able to use the carpet from a rules standpoint.

You're right that fluff and rules aren't the same thing. That quote is from a rule though. Ruleswise, the slann is explicitly mounted on a palanquin.

theunwantedbeing
29-09-2010, 19:33
You're right that fluff and rules aren't the same thing. That quote is from a rule though. Ruleswise, the slann is explicitly mounted on a palanquin.

Back that up with some rules please.

sulla
29-09-2010, 20:18
Rules: A model is mounted if it has a mount. Slann definitely has no mount. Every other model is presumed, by default, to be on foot if it has no mount or another ruling saying it is not on foot, the Slann follows the same rules as everyone else.

That rule (in bold) should definately be enough to satisfy the conditions of the carpet for a slann. Which page is it on?

Kudzu
29-09-2010, 22:26
You're right that fluff and rules aren't the same thing. That quote is from a rule though. Ruleswise, the slann is explicitly mounted on a palanquin.

It's fluff on a rule, nothing more and nothing less.

Find a mount in any other army book that doesn't have a statline in some way, shape, form, or fashion. If the Slann was mounted he would have a 6+ AS as well (and since his supposed mount is carved rock I would expect it to count as barded for 5+).

theunwantedbeing
29-09-2010, 22:31
It's fluff on a rule, nothing more and nothing less.

Find a mount in any other army book that doesn't have a statline in some way, shape, form, or fashion. If the Slann was mounted he would have a 6+ AS as well (and since his supposed mount is carved rock I would expect it to count as barded for 5+).

Your missing the point entirely.
The argument is that he isnt on foot.
The argument is not that he is mounted.

He does not need a rule stating he is mounted, what we are wanting to find is a rule that states that he is not on foot. He is Infantry, and thus on foot if such a rule does not exist.

As far as I have found, the idea of him not being on foot is simply a carry over from last edition where he wasn't on foot (but wasnt mounted either).

Kudzu
29-09-2010, 22:34
Your missing the point entirely.
The argument is that he isnt on foot.
The argument is not that he is mounted.

He does not need a rule stating he is mounted, what we are wanting to find is a rule that states that he is not on foot. He is Infantry, and thus on foot if such a rule does not exist.

As far as I have found, the idea of him not being on foot is simply a carry over from last edition where he wasn't on foot (but wasnt mounted either).

Notice how I quoted Decker saying "Ruleswise, the slann is explicitly mounted on a palanquin."

decker_cky
30-09-2010, 06:21
It's written in a rule, not in a fluff section. You don't accept it, but it's part of a rule that he's mounted.

"In battle, the Slann Mage-Priest rides upon his floating stone palanquin"

Page 43 in the lizardmen book.

Kudzu
30-09-2010, 14:51
It's written in a rule, not in a fluff section. You don't accept it, but it's part of a rule that he's mounted.

"In battle, the Slann Mage-Priest rides upon his floating stone palanquin"

Page 43 in the lizardmen book.

The first two sentences are fluff, unless our Temple Guard models are actually to be made of solid blocks of reptilian sinew.

Bac5665
30-09-2010, 15:01
The first two sentences are fluff, unless our Temple Guard models are actually to be made of solid blocks of reptilian sinew.

Do it! Carve some TG out of Iguana meat! That would be awesome!

No wait, that would be awful.

And, you're entirely correct. GW often writes both fluff and rules in their rules blocks. And no, I have no way to resolve that; most of the time its obvious, but sometimes you just can't tell.

If someone can actually define "on foot" that would be great. So far, the best I've heard is "not mounted" but even that didn't seem very solid.

decker_cky
30-09-2010, 17:05
They're fluff.....but they're rules too. And take a step back and look at it. You're arguing that something which has written "In battle, the Slann Mage-Priest rides upon his floating stone palanquin" isn't riding anything. "Oh, that part of the rule doesn't count because it's fluff" is a silly argument. It's text within the rule.

A Slann isn't on foot. You may want him to fly, but as written, he can't.

Kudzu
30-09-2010, 17:56
They're fluff.....but they're rules too. And take a step back and look at it. You're arguing that something which has written "In battle, the Slann Mage-Priest rides upon his floating stone palanquin" isn't riding anything. "Oh, that part of the rule doesn't count because it's fluff" is a silly argument. It's text within the rule.

A Slann isn't on foot. You may want him to fly, but as written, he can't.

Find me another example of anything that "rides into battle" on something that doesn't have a separate stat line and doesn't provide an armor save and you win. Until then, fluff is just that-- fluff.

I guess you want to argue that since my chameleon skinks don't actually change color on the table they don't get the additional -1 modifier to hit and that if my steg is killed I actually have to crush my skink models because it says so in the rules.

But let's have a bit of fun, oh mighty beastman player-- Since your centigors don't actually drink they shouldn't get their bonuses, your Cygors don't get any of their special abilities since none of that actually happens to the model, your Jabbersythes don't really drive anyone insane so no free wounds, etc, etc, etc. I mean, it's written in the rules that they have to do those things in order to have them effect the table, but if they don't do them then those effects shouldn't happen, right?

All joking aside, until it's FAQ'ed one way or another I say let the froggies fly. A smart toad will stay in it's bunker of solid reptilian sinew anyway.

Thundergod
30-09-2010, 17:57
just to be clear, a Dwarf lord with shield bearers is not on foot, he is on feet. four of em. if Dwarves could take magic items, i'd love to see a lord on sheild bearers, on a carpet. It does seem clear to me that whatever the Slann may be on, it is not on foot. Rules-wise. . . well, smarter guys than me have tried to argue that one out.

Dutch_Digger
30-09-2010, 22:34
are you arguing that you can only be on foot if you're on 1 foot?

Atrahasis
01-10-2010, 09:07
Modelling my Slann as a snail...

antihelten
01-10-2010, 10:19
Is a skaven warlord on warlitter "on foot"? He is still infantry. What about dwarven shield bearers. Same thing. Nurgle gets a palanquin too do they not? If all these are classed as infantry they should be able to buy the carpet too, if the slann can.

I know this is a bit of topic but what makes you think the warlord still counts as infantry?, couldn't find any mention of it in the faq, so genuinely curious

Chris_
01-10-2010, 10:24
I know this is a bit of topic but what makes you think the warlord still counts as infantry?, couldn't find any mention of it in the faq, so genuinely curious
It is in the Bestiary, pg. 486 BRB.

Atrahasis
01-10-2010, 10:26
Nothing in the rules changes his type from Infantry.

antihelten
01-10-2010, 10:28
Nothing in the rules changes his type from Infantry.

except the fact that he's ridding a mount?

Chris_
01-10-2010, 10:30
Hello, did you two just totally miss my post?

Atrahasis
01-10-2010, 10:30
Simply riding a mount doesn't change your troop type. Riding a single wound mount, or riding a monstrous beast, war beast, monster or chariot does.

Riding a mount in and of itself doesn't change anything.

@Chris_ : No, I didn't miss your post, but it wasn't there when I posted. It's also not disagreeing with my post, and a mount having "Infantry" as its type is irrelevant to this particular point -- a Nurgle Palanquin is Infantry, but when ridden the model becomes cavalry.

Chris_
01-10-2010, 10:34
Well, if you guys were arguing just to prove a point then by all means do carry on. The war-litter however is clearly inf, as is the toad and the palanquin.

Wait... You claim that inf + inf = cav? Or is there a rule stating this that I missed? Well, guess that might be argued in the palanquins case, but really strange rule that all 1W mounts are per default cav mounts...

antihelten
01-10-2010, 10:42
Simply riding a mount doesn't change your troop type. Riding a single wound mount, or riding a monstrous beast, war beast, monster or chariot does.

Riding a mount in and of itself doesn't change anything.

@Chris_ : No, I didn't miss your post, but it wasn't there when I posted. It's also not disagreeing with my post, and a mount having "Infantry" as its type is irrelevant to this particular point -- a Nurgle Palanquin is Infantry, but when ridden the model becomes cavalry.

so this means that if it was actually possible to ride say a salamander (3 wounds and warbeast) then the character would still count as infantry, and a grey seer on a bell can still get look out sir rolls?

Atrahasis
01-10-2010, 10:46
Wait... You claim that inf + inf = cav? Or is there a rule stating this that I missed? Well, guess that might be argued in the palanquins case, but really strange rule that all 1W mounts are per default cav mounts...

I'm not claiming it, the rules say it. The Palanquin is a single wound mount and so becomes cavalry when ridden.

@antihelten : The rider would be infantry, and the mount would be a war beast. It doesn't actually come up though.

Chris_
01-10-2010, 10:49
Yeah, on the rules for 1W mounts that's true. War-litter and shield-bearer has no wounds so no bearing on this, same for the toad.

antihelten
01-10-2010, 10:56
I'm not claiming it, the rules say it. The Palanquin is a single wound mount and so becomes cavalry when ridden.

@antihelten : The rider would be infantry, and the mount would be a war beast. It doesn't actually come up though.

ok, thanks, what about the last part with the grey seer, he can still get look out sir rolls then since he still counts as infantry?

diggerydoom
02-10-2010, 17:48
Probably not as he is riding a 'unique' unit type

theorox
02-10-2010, 18:03
So if I model my Imperial Captain to be sitting on a Magic Carpet, he isn't on foot so can't take the Arabyan Carpet?

*Peeks at your avatar* :D

You are absolutely right though, i think. Slann shouldn't have this taken away from him...

Does the Palanquin have any sort of rules at all? Otherwise, it doesn't matter if he has it or not, he is still "on foot." the model has no part or point of significance in this whatsoever. If i model my Orc Warboss sitting in a chair, can't he use the Arabyan Carpet? That just feels like the most extreme case of ruleslaweyering i have ever seen. (This is not directed at anyone in particular...)

Edit: Actually, it doesnt matter if the palanquin has rules, i'd think, unless otherwise stated (Or on a steed) the model is obviously on foot as standard, no?

Theo

antihelten
02-10-2010, 19:33
Probably not as he is riding a 'unique' unit type

But as atrahasis said (in effect) riding a unique unit doesn't change your unit type (unless it only has 1 wound), and as far as I can tell unit type is the only qualifier for getting a look out sir roll or what?

sulla
02-10-2010, 20:11
Edit: Actually, it doesnt matter if the palanquin has rules, i'd think, unless otherwise stated (Or on a steed) the model is obviously on foot as standard, no?

TheoNo. The model is infantry regardless of anything else. The model is only 'on foot' if the model is standing on the ground.

There are presently no official Slann models on foot (not surprising since they probably couldn't support their own weight). Should this stop a slann slithering onto a (very large) magical Arabyan carpet? Logically, of course not. But unless there is a rule that equates infantry meaning on foot by default, then 'Infantry or monstrous infantry models on foot only' is a big sticking point for the fat frog. I think you're better off houseruling it or checking with and tournament organiser just so you avoid nasty surprises.

Kudzu
02-10-2010, 20:21
No. The model is infantry regardless of anything else. The model is only 'on foot' if the model is standing on the ground.

There are presently no official Slann models on foot (not surprising since they probably couldn't support their own weight). Should this stop a slann slithering onto a (very large) magical Arabyan carpet? Logically, of course not. But unless there is a rule that equates infantry meaning on foot by default, then 'Infantry or monstrous infantry models on foot only' is a big sticking point for the fat frog. I think you're better off houseruling it or checking with and tournament organiser just so you avoid nasty surprises.

So the elf mages modeled to be floating aren't on foot? Good to know.

By your logic, if you want to take a Slann on a carpet all you have to do is model your Slann to not be on the palanquin and you're golden.

Kevlar
03-10-2010, 03:07
Does the Palanquin have any sort of rules at all? Otherwise, it doesn't matter if he has it or not, he is still "on foot." the model has no part or point of significance in this whatsoever. If i model my Orc Warboss sitting in a chair, can't he use the Arabyan Carpet? That just feels like the most extreme case of ruleslaweyering i have ever seen. (This is not directed at anyone in particular...)

Edit: Actually, it doesnt matter if the palanquin has rules, i'd think, unless otherwise stated (Or on a steed) the model is obviously on foot as standard, no?

Theo

I think the argument stems from the fact that the palanquin stops the Slann from using transformation of kadon, which for all intents and purposes should stop the carpet as well if you reason it out.

Kudzu
03-10-2010, 03:28
I think the argument stems from the fact that the palanquin stops the Slann from using transformation of kadon, which for all intents and purposes should stop the carpet as well if you reason it out.

That's an assumption and a poor one at that. There was no reasoning given behind that ruling. It could be from "not on foot" to poor interaction with the Temple Guard rules, or to not wanting to have an ethereal, 4+ wardsave, etc, etc dragon on the table.

sulla
03-10-2010, 04:14
So the elf mages modeled to be floating aren't on foot? Good to know.

By your logic, if you want to take a Slann on a carpet all you have to do is model your Slann to not be on the palanquin and you're golden.I can't argue that those floating elven mages are on foot because they are not. Luckily for me, I have ample elven mages and sorceresses who are on foot.

As for the slann, you can rail against 'my logic' all you like. The fact is that fat frogs are infantry who float on palanquins. I'm not sure there's any fluff or rules reference to any Slann ever walking on foot. So if you changed the model to gain that advantage, good for you, but expect to get the sort of dirty looks a player who modelled a crouching dragon would get. Just houserule it with your group if it's that important to you.