PDA

View Full Version : Warriors of Chaos Mounts.



Fungore
09-10-2010, 02:26
If I take a character in the warriors of chaos army and have him mounted on a daemonic mount, juggernaut, disc of tzeentch or a steed of slaneesh, does he count as Calvary troop type

Chris_
09-10-2010, 02:33
All 1W mounts makes the model count as Cavalry. So yes, he would be cav.

Synnister
09-10-2010, 03:10
All 1W mounts makes the model count as Cavalry. So yes, he would be cav.

That is not a correct statement according to the errata for the brb.


Page 105 – Monstrous Cavalry Mount
Add “ even if he is riding a monstrous beast with only one
Wound” to the end of the last sentence of the first paragraph.

If your mount is a monstrous beast then you are monstrous cav regardless of the number of wounds of the mount. For WoC mounts there is some debate since the AB says these models are treated as Cav thus overriding the BRB. There was a huge thread about it. I personally don't think you follow the AB since if you do the palaquin will count as Cav.

AMWOOD co
09-10-2010, 03:14
Don't listen to the first response. What you want to do is check the reference section in your rulebook for the unit type of the various mounts (eg. Daemon Steed is Monstrous Beast) and note what rules are used when such a creature is mounted (A riden Monstrous Beast is Monstrous Cavalry).

Palanquin is the odd one out. It's infantry and there are no rules for models mounted on infantry. I would houserule to use all the rules for cavalry except Swiftstride and maybe terrain. Also, he would still count as infantry for purposes of spells, Look Out Sir, etc.

Synnister
09-10-2010, 03:26
Don't listen to the first response. What you want to do is check the reference section in your rulebook for the unit type of the various mounts (eg. Daemon Steed is Monstrous Beast) and note what rules are used when such a creature is mounted (A riden Monstrous Beast is Monstrous Cavalry).

Palanquin is the odd one out. It's infantry and there are no rules for models mounted on infantry. I would houserule to use all the rules for cavalry except Swiftstride and maybe terrain. Also, he would still count as infantry for purposes of spells, Look Out Sir, etc.

Don't know what you are going on about here, but the BRB specifically says that you use the unit type in the bestiary unless your AB specifies the unit type. The entries for the WoC mounts in the AB says they count as cavalry. So, essentially you either follow the AB which says they're all cavalry or you follow the bestiary in the back of the BRB. Best solution is to talk it over with your opponent prior to the game since there is alot of ambiguity in this situation.

AMWOOD co
09-10-2010, 03:49
I use the Bestiary Section, otherwise there would be no point in giving a Daemon Mount the type of monstrous beast, now would there?

As for my going on, Palanquins of Nurgle are Infantry. You have an infantry model mounted on infantry. If using the Bestiary as your guide and the descriptions in the unit type section of the main rules, what would a mounted Palanquin count as?

Synnister
09-10-2010, 04:15
I use the Bestiary Section, otherwise there would be no point in giving a Daemon Mount the type of monstrous beast, now would there?

So do you just skip the rule that says if the unit type is listed in the AB you use that? I mean there would be no point to putting that in if they just wanted you to only follow the bestiary section.


As for my going on, Palanquins of Nurgle are Infantry. You have an infantry model mounted on infantry. If using the Bestiary as your guide and the descriptions in the unit type section of the main rules, what would a mounted Palanquin count as?

If you follow the rules in the book you'd count it as cavalry since that's what it is classified as in the AB. I mean we can just start throwing around random rules that go against the rulebook all night but I find it funner to actually debate the rules in the rulebook.

Lazarian
09-10-2010, 04:24
The bestiary section in the rulebook is the arbiter in this case since before the 8th rulebook the designations did not exist.

The BRB is the first time several terms like monstrous beast and monstrous cav were codified.

Synnister
09-10-2010, 04:31
The bestiary section in the rulebook is the arbiter in this case since before the 8th rulebook the designations did not exist.

The BRB is the first time several terms like monstrous beast and monstrous cav were codified.

That's not even close to being the rules for this situation.

1) The BRB says to use bestiary if the AB doesn't include unit type.

2) The WoC AB says that these mounts are Cavalry.

This is the current situation. According to all rules involved they are cavalry. Do I think this is the intention, no. However, I don't do RAI. There is only the rules. And the rules say they're cavalry.

Chris_
09-10-2010, 06:18
Okay, this is the way it is:

If the AB state that they are Cavalry Mounts (which it does for Warriors of Chaos) then they are simply cavalry. If it doesn't and it is a 1W creature that is not a Monstrous Beast/Monstrous Cav/Monster then it is still Cavalry.

That's what I get for not reading the FAQ before answering a question... Lol

AMWOOD co
09-10-2010, 06:26
I'm sorry, but the FAQ trumps the book.


Troop Type
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

Therefore, a character mounted on a Juggernaut is riding a Monstrous Beast. The whole model is thus Monstrous Cavalry.

Chris_
09-10-2010, 06:29
I'm sorry, but the FAQ trumps the book.



Therefore, a character mounted on a Juggernaut is riding a Monstrous Beast. The whole model is thus Monstrous Cavalry.The problem is that the AB does list the troop type, they are all Cavalry Mounts. And then according to BRB pg. 104 "If a character has a cavalry mount, the whole model is treated as having the troop type 'cavalry'..."

The FAQ says that if a troop type is NOT listed, refer to the Bestiary, well it IS listed so you don't check the Bestiary.

ChrisIronBrow
09-10-2010, 08:54
Read this

VVVVVVVVV

Chris_
09-10-2010, 13:01
^^^^^^^^
Read that... :D

AMWOOD co
09-10-2010, 21:44
Now we come to a matter which most of you seem to have missed. What is meant when the FAQ says that "Each" unit type is defined.

In logic, the terms 'any' and 'all' are used when determining whether the conditions of an 'if statement' are met. The first is met should there be so much as a single match. The second is met only when every such occurance is met.

From the Warrriors of Chaos army book, we can conclude that 'all' is not met as not every single type is defined (only those creatures, which are referred to as cavalry, the warshrine, and arguably the Hellcannon). We can furthur conclude that 'any' is not intended as there would still be undefined units (Spawn, Dragon Ogres, Trolls, etc).

Therefore, 'all' is intended, but not met, so every unit type should be gotten from the bestiary, no matter what the army book may say.

teleologica
09-10-2010, 22:26
Seriously, this argument has been done in this section at least three times already to my recollection. Not to mention several times in the WoC Tactica thread. If you really want to go round and round and round and round and round on the same arguments, then good luck to you. However, it would be less painful for the rest of us if you'd use the search function.

Short answer - some people say the BRB tells you what the unit types are; other people say AB trumps BRB so they are cavalry. Pick whichever you prefer, and check your opponent agrees.

jamano
10-10-2010, 04:32
AMWOOD makes a good point I hadn't thought of before. It doesn't say the unit type of everything in the book, just that the mounts are cavalry, and that entry says "lists the troop type for each model" the WoC book is not one that lists that, so go with the brb. All the new books will have such a table in them, so this is CLEARLY what that rule is referring to, let's be honest WoC players, 8th obviously intended to make those mounts not get a LoS roll(I play skaven and I feel the pain on the poor bonebreaker) and trying to use the line in the woc book that isnt referring to troop type, but to a special rule in 7th, is just trying to bypass the clear intent with a minor rule nitpick. So what AMWOOD says here is an even better rules nitpick that supercedes the one saying their cavalry. Case closed in my mind.

ChrisIronBrow
10-10-2010, 04:43
Case closed in my mind.

Ultimately their troop type is irrelevant because of pg.54 of the WoC book. The book says they are cav, so they are cav. Even if they were troop type infantry, the book still says they are cav.

jamano
10-10-2010, 05:37
You should change your signature to your new argument.

Just let the juggernaut go.

ChrisIronBrow
10-10-2010, 06:04
You should change your signature to your new argument.

Just let the juggernaut go.

Honestly, after having fought this out three times already, each time with a new group of people who haven't bothered reading the WoC book, your not getting my real arguments. Your just getting my abbreviated "read the rules" argument.

AMWOOD co
10-10-2010, 11:23
Well, I've read the rules and applied what knowledge I have. My conclusion stands as your repetition of 'read the rules' changes nothing. Still, let's let this thread die, we obviously will not agree with eachother until furthur is ruled from the developers.

Tae
11-10-2010, 19:07
WoC FAQ address this question now.

Basically, ignore the army book. They are what it says in the BRB.

jamano
11-10-2010, 19:11
chrisironbrow changed his signature already!

ChrisIronBrow
11-10-2010, 20:51
chrisironbrow changed his signature already!

:P
Indeed, though it has more to do with the imagery in my head then the rule.

I'm really glad to see the GW has changed this rule to be clear and consise. That's really all I've wanted from the beginning.

Though it's kinda sad that that all of the WoC mounts are useless now except the palanquin.

AMWOOD co
12-10-2010, 01:42
What do you mean 'worthless'? A Discs, Chaos Steeds and Steeds of Slaanesh still make the character cavalry (read the war beast unit type). The Juggernaut and Daemonic Mount are now Monstrous Cavalry, and while that hurts against Look Out Sir, it is still useful in combat by providing an additional S5 hit at the end of the round (and an Exalted on a Jugger still has a 1+ save from just being mounted on the Jugger). The palanquin is the oddball as there's no rule for being mounted on infantry, but I would use my previously mentioned bit.

While we won't see as many Daemonic Mounts in units of knights anymore, I still believe that Juggernauts will be about the game fields.

Chris_
12-10-2010, 03:43
Hehe, awesome. Now this is settled too :) Guess we will have to find other stuff to argue/discuss about now...

ChrisIronBrow
12-10-2010, 06:11
What do you mean 'worthless'? A Discs, Chaos Steeds and Steeds of Slaanesh still make the character cavalry (read the war beast unit type). The Juggernaut and Daemonic Mount are now Monstrous Cavalry, and while that hurts against Look Out Sir, it is still useful in combat by providing an additional S5 hit at the end of the round (and an Exalted on a Jugger still has a 1+ save from just being mounted on the Jugger). The palanquin is the oddball as there's no rule for being mounted on infantry, but I would use my previously mentioned bit.

While we won't see as many Daemonic Mounts in units of knights anymore, I still believe that Juggernauts will be about the game fields.


well, lets just say I disagree. Outside of "fun" games I doubt you'll see them anymore. They just don't make sense for the points spent and the weaknesses they provide.

antihelten
12-10-2010, 14:18
The palanquin is the oddball as there's no rule for being mounted on infantry, but I would use my previously mentioned bit.


Actually there is, as any mount with 1 wound (that isn't a monstrous beast) counts as a cavalry mount as per page 104. I would guess GW probably intended for it to count as infantry when mounted, but the rules don't really support that as far as I can tell.

As for the usefulness of the juggernaut, who really cares when the model looks as great as it does :).

Tregar
12-10-2010, 15:57
Well, anyone playing against anyone with a cannon or similar would care...

AMWOOD co
12-10-2010, 18:43
well, lets just say I disagree. Outside of "fun" games I doubt you'll see them anymore. They just don't make sense for the points spent and the weaknesses they provide.

I assume 'they' is the Juggernaut and Daemonic Mount? I intend to see Archaon terrorizing the field, myself, and any character can be given the handy little Golden Eye if you're paranoid. A juggernaut rider is actually appealing to me as I get a 1+ armour when using a great weapon and needing no magic items.


Actually there is, as any mount with 1 wound (that isn't a monstrous beast) counts as a cavalry mount as per page 104. I would guess GW probably intended for it to count as infantry when mounted, but the rules don't really support that as far as I can tell.

Really? I'll have to double check that when I get my book back.

Mr_Rose
12-10-2010, 20:46
Fortunately this affects my three-juggernaut super-heavy cavalry shock unit not at all. ;)