PDA

View Full Version : Directing Attacks at Characters on Chariots (Are Mounted Chariots a Must in 8th?)



Morehammer
11-10-2010, 21:40
Hi folks. Thanks in advance for any help on this topic.

I am a bit confused about how to combine Chariots and Ridden Monsters for Character mounts when it comes to directing attacks in combat.

This is the situation. My buddy plays chaos daemons and has a Khorne herald on a Bloodcrusher chariot. I charge him with three fiends of Slaanesh. Can I chose to direct all my attacks against his herald? It would be much easier to take out his herald then the whole chariot.

The conflict really is between the rules in the chariots description stating that the W and T of the crew are never used VS the the rules for monstrous riders allowing models to direct their attack at either the rider (in this case the crew) or the monster (in this case the chariot).

If the chariots T and W are used for shooting AND combat then wow. I will use nothing but chariots all the time!:)

Loopstah
11-10-2010, 21:46
If you are in combat with a Character on a chariot then you can attack either the Chariot or the Character. They are treated like ridden monsters so you pick which to attack. The character replaces one of the crew, they don't become one of the crew.

Morehammer
11-10-2010, 22:43
Hey thanks!

That is what I thought:)

Hopefully my buddy will jump on this thread so he can share his interpretation of this rule.

AMWOOD co
12-10-2010, 00:33
I believe for chariots that have no crew (War Alters, Tomb Kings/Princes, Daemon characters), you use the WS of the beasts as there is no crew. I don't know if there actually is a ruling on this or not as I don't have my book on me.

Lord Krell
12-10-2010, 01:00
If you are in combat with a Character on a chariot then you can attack either the Chariot or the Character. They are treated like ridden monsters so you pick which to attack. The character replaces one of the crew, they don't become one of the crew.

Actually, that is not what the rulebook states.
The rulebook states that a character on a chariot mount follows ALL rules for chariots and characters. And then the rulebook adds, OTHERWISE, follows the rules for ridden monsters. Suggesting that what is not covered by chariots and characters is supplemented by "ridden monster" rules, not superseded by it. You should read the sections under "ridden monster" not "monster mount" because the chariot is a "chariot mount." In this case you assumed that the paragraph on "monster mount" apply to "chariot mount" but if you look closer you will see that each paragraph applying to "ridden monster" is headlined by "Ridden Monster."

Nowhere does it state that "the character replaces one of the crew, they don't become one of the crew."(quote)
In fact, in the DoC list there is no crew to begin with, other than the character riding it. And when you use the wording "replaces one of the crew," it suggests in itself that indeed the character will serve as one of the crew, but also apply rules that apply to characters (see page 105).

Since ALL the rules for "chariots" apply, on page 86 in the WHFRB we find that chariots mounts and crew all are treated as one model, and that that model uses the WS, S, I, and A of the crew, but the W, T, and armor saves of the chariot (leaving out to mention ward saves, and thus they fall under rules of "character" and would be allowed for example an Herald).

If you make statements on the forums, be responsible and back it up with page reference and paraphrasing sections to support your reasoning. I understand we cannot write the rules out, but unless you clarify your reasoning it becomes impossible to discuss or debate a point. Just making statements are confusing and misleading, just look at how lost Morehammer got from your reply Loopstah. If you really think GW intended to nerf chariots, to the point of making they 1d6 impact hits only, with terrain limits, rest assure they would be more clear about it. Again, ALL rules for chariots apply when a character gets in one. And yes, at times he will be the ONLY crew in the chariot.

Much Aloha, LordKhrell

Shas'O Vash
12-10-2010, 03:08
My knee jerk reaction was to agree with Loopstah and AMWOOD co, however Lord Krell makes a damn good case for using the chariots toughness, wounds, and armor save. RAW I would say LK is correct.

I would have argued that the RAI would go against him, but I just found out not too many days ago that mounting a character on a MB makes him MC with most likely a better wound and toughness stats (for characteristic tests at least), and until earlier today immunity to KB. So considering that this is 8th edition and the game has changed, LK may be right.

I'll have to read more into this to see if everything makes sense, but this may be a supportable argument. I'll get back to you after a little research.

Kalandros
12-10-2010, 03:44
Characters on Chariots can be killed by a Killing Blow.

(Rulebook FAQ Update)

The character is still stand-alone on his mount.

Chris_
12-10-2010, 04:37
I think this should solve the question:


Q: Can a model in a challenge direct his attacks against an enemy
character’s chariot or monstrous mount? (p102)
A: Yes.

This with everything else should clearly point to the character being able to be targeted seperately from his chariot mount.

Lord Krell
12-10-2010, 04:42
I think this should solve the question:


Quote Q: Can a model in a challenge direct his attacks against an enemy
character’s chariot or monstrous mount? (p102)
A: Yes.
This with everything else should clearly point to the character being able to be targeted seperately from his chariot mount.

Nobody is arguing that you cannot direct attacks against an "enemy charater's chariot..."

That is exactly the point, you attack the chariot. And regardless, when on the chariot the character would use the T, W, and armor save of the chariot. The section on pg 86 states, that the crew, mount, and chariot, count as one model.

As for killing blow still working, makes sense to me, you would still apply the T, W, and armor save of the chariot (even though it would be an instant kill if you pull off the killing blow).
ps. GW homepage is down atm, so I will check the FAQ when it comes up, and get back to you guys. ds
Aloha, LordKhrell

Chris_
12-10-2010, 04:52
^ Well, the way I read that was that usually you attack the character but you are also able to direct attacks at the chariot.

This "replace" word is badly used as it might lead people to assume that the character riding a chariot is subject to the same rules non-character crews are (as you say, it doesn't state explicitly that they don't become a part of the crew, neither does it say explicitly that they DO become a part of the crew). The way I read the rules for chariot mounts is that it follows the rule for character, chariot and ridden monster where these apply (which they would do in CC).

The way you are trying to argue it would also make you remove the whole model if the chariot dies.

Edit: Oh, the 8-9 year old Tomb Kings book does it better as it uses "displace" instead of "replace", no confusion there :)

Lord Krell
12-10-2010, 05:19
Well, the way I read that was that usually you attack the character but you are also able to direct attacks at the chariot.

This "replace" word is badly used as it might lead people to assume that the character riding a chariot is subject to the same rules non-character crews are (as you say, it doesn't state explicitly that they don't become a part of the crew, neither does it say explicitly that they DO become a part of the crew). The way I read the rules for chariot mounts is that it follows the rule for character, chariot and ridden monster where these apply (which they would do in CC).

The way you are trying to argue it would also make you remove the whole model if the chariot dies.

Edit: Oh, the 8-9 year old Tomb Kings book does it better as it uses "displace" instead of "replace", no confusion there

It does state that a "chariot mount" is of a different troop type (troop type: chariot) than "monsterous mount" and it also clearly states that ALL chariot rules apply to a character in a chariot.

And yes, if the chariot dies, the crew and the mounts die as well, including any characters in it. Again, the chariot rules dictates: crew/mounts/chariot is treated like one (1) model for all purposes (page 86), and well yes you can "killing blow" the whole thing by targetting a character onboard (according to the FAQ).
As far as rules apply, it states on page 105: ALL rules for "chariots" and "characters" apply, OTHERWISE, rules for "ridden monster" apply, the CC section on page 106 talks about "monsterous mounts" in CC, not "chariot mounts" or "ridden monsters."

Thanks for the civil replies,
Aloha, Lord Khrell the Undead Champion

Lord Krell
12-10-2010, 05:38
Even though it is sort of off topic, I want to point out that the chariot rules, even though good in some aspects also include restrictions that does not apply to "ridden monsters" or "monsterous mounts" for example:

a chariot does not attack (unless you charge and it gets 1d6 impact hits)
a chariot beast only gets to attack forward
a chariot cannot move faster than its M, unless it charges.
a chariot does not fight on, without its rider/crew
a chariot struggles with terrain
a chariot or characters on the chariot does not use magical armor of a character, but is stuck with the chariot's armor (exception w ward save)
a chariot m beast loses stomp attacks
a chariot cannot assault buildings
a chariot although benefitting from "ridden monster" does not benefit from +1 armor from being a "ridden monster" AGAIN showing discrepancy between the rules "chariot, character, ridden monster."

The above examples show that not every rule under "ridden monster" can apply to a "chariot mount" simply because it first follows "chariot" and "character" specific rules. Thus, let us acknowledge that the rule book states that the Chariot mount first follows the rules for "chariots and characters" and secondary, what else is applicable from the "ridden monster" section, without compromising the rules under the "chariot" or "character" section. They are not equally important, the word OTHERWISE, specifies, that aside from the rules described under "chariot" and "character" which takes presedence, "ridden monsters" cover the rest. And again, not "monsterous mount" specific rules... which is something completely different from "chariot mount" (when you have two fighting entities, vs crew/beasts/chariot- which count as 1 model).

Morehammer
12-10-2010, 05:40
So if this is true, there is going to be a rush on mounted chariots:) Every army that can get one will use it as it is a wonderfully cheap way to effectively transform your characters to monsters. This may be watershed moment for 8th:)

It would be nice if someone could put up a flow-chart style breakdown of what rules apply and when. What rules are used from characters, from chariots, from monsters, and from monster riders.

Shas'O Vash
12-10-2010, 05:43
Alright, I'm done with my research. I’m going to work through my train of thought here, so hear me out before responding.

Characters riding War Beasts (Cavalry), Monstrous Beasts (Monstrous Cavalry), and Chariots all have identical wording with regards to their troop type, “…the whole model is treated as having the troop type ‘[…]’ and follows all the rules for both characters and […] models.” (p. 104, 105) Chariot mounts have the additional wording of, “A chariot mount otherwise follows all the rules for ridden monsters…” (p. 105) This would imply that the Chariot rules take precedence and the Ridden Monster rules fill in the holes.

Looking at the wording for Cavalry (p. 82), Monstrous Cavalry (p. 83), and Chariots (p. 86), we see many similarities. Since MC is just a specialized version of Cavalry (all of the Cavalry rules apply with the addition using the highest wounds, Stomp, and Monstrous Ranks) I’ll focus on the wording between Cavalry and Chariots. Both have the Split Profile rule. Both specifically state which characteristics you use in which situation. Just as Cavalry specifically states you use the rider’s Toughness, Wounds, and Armor Save, a Chariot specifically states you use the Chariot’s Toughness, Wounds, and Armor Save; the wording and sentence structure for both troop types are laid out virtually identical. Further, the rules for Cavalry state, “…it is treated as a single model – the rider cannot dismount.” Chariots similarly state, “In a similar manner to cavalry, chariots [are] treated as a single model.” In fact, to reinforce this argument even more the FAQ sates, “Q: Does a character have a troop type? If yes, do all of the rules that apply to that troop type apply to the character? And will the character be affected by special attacks or spells that affect that troop type? (p96) A: Yes to all questions.” The argument for a single model with split profile seems awfully air tight so far.

Moving back to the rules for Chariot Mounts (p. 105), allow me to complete the rules quote that I half quoted above, “A chariot mount otherwise follows all the rules for ridden monsters, save for the fact that a chariot does not need to take a Monster Reaction test if the character is slain.” What ho? That doesn’t make any sense with what we just learned from reading the pertinent rules sections on Cavalry and Chariots! How can you kill part of a single model with a combined profile?

Digging deeper into the rules for Ridden Monsters, the third paragraph starts out with, “Whilst a cavalry model is treated as a single model for the purposes of hitting and wounding, a character and his ridden monster can be attacked separately.” This seems to be in direct conflict with the rules for Chariots, as quite a few rules in this section are. The rules for Chariot Mounts however, strongly imply that the rules for Chariots supersede those for Ridden Monsters, so we almost have to go with the rules for Chariots over Ridden Monsters whenever they are in direct conflict. Next up is Special Rules; nothing contradictory here. The next section is for Ridden Monsters and Armor Saves; we know from the Chariots section that we use the Chariot’s Armor Save, not the riders, so this section doesn’t apply to Characters on Chariots.

Then we start getting to the interesting parts: Shooting at Ridden Monsters. Once again we’re considering them a “single model”. On an interesting note, this section talks about randomizing hits between multiple riders. Do we randomize hits on a Character riding a Chariot between the Character, the Chariot, and the poor rider standing next to the Character on the Chariot? I think not. That’s just silly! The rules for Chariots state that they are a single model with a split profile so it is a pretty strong argument that this section does not apply either.

Next is Monster Mounts in Close Combat. Here again we would think that the rules for Chariots override the rules for Ridden Monsters, but the FAQ specifically states, “Q: Can a model in a challenge direct his attacks against an enemy character’s chariot or monstrous mount? (p102) A: Yes.” Ok, so the FAQ says that this can happen. Hmmmm… Very confusing to say the least. Up until this point there was an almost air tight argument for how Characters in Chariots are treated. I guess you could make the argument that the model is a single model with a split profile but the enemy can choose to attack the model using the crew’s Weapon Skill as opposed to the Character’s, which would most likely be lower. This doesn’t seem very in line with everything, but it would make the rules and FAQ consistent.

Finally, we have the rules for Slain Riders or Mounts. As we’ve already discussed, we can consider the Character/Chariot model as a single combined model and keep everything consistent, all be it weird. The only thing that would demand that Characters can be killed separately from the Chariot is the passage that I’ve already quoted twice before, “… save for the fact that a chariot does not need to take a Monster Reaction test if the character is slain.” So the rules obviously intend Characters to be able to die and the Chariot fights on.

On a side note, the FAQ also states, “Q: Does Killing Blow work against a mounted character regardless of what he is mounted on? (p72) A: Yes, as long as the character would count as an infantry model if it wasn’t mounted.” So either KB kills the Character and leaves the Chariot or KB kills the entire model, depending which rule you think takes precedence.

So what do I think? In reflection, this all seems very contradictory. The wording for Cavalry being a single model with a split profile is near identical to the wording for Chariots. Even the FAQ supports this with its troop type ruling. By this alone, I would say that Characters on Chariots are indeed a single model with a combined profile and cannot be attacked separately. However, the rules strongly imply that the intent is for Characters to be able to die separately from their Chariots and the FAQ ruling that Chariots can be attacked separately from the Characters in challenges is beyond question.

So how do we put everything together in a consistent manner considering the rules for Chariots, Chariot Mounts, Ridden Monsters, and the FAQ all compliment and contradict each other in a spectacularly amazing fashion? The suggestion that I would offer is from a pure RAW stand point, and I’m sure I’m going to get flamed all to Hell for it. Using the Chariot rules as a base and incorporating the explicit exceptions laid out under the Ridden Monsters rules and FAQ, here goes…

Characters use the Toughness, Strength, and Wounds characteristics of their Chariot as laid out in the Chariots rules. Characters and their Chariots can be attacked and killed separately in both close combat and from shooting in the manner laid out in the Ridden Monsters rules.

This seems very weird to me but it is consistent with the RAW; and don't Monstrous Cavalry do something very similar with how they treat wounds? So what about RAI you may ask? I have no idea. 8th edition does quite a few things that are wholly unfamiliar to me.

And on that note, I'm going to bed. The heat from the hatred and flames should keep my soul warm and comfortable in the long hours of the night. :)

Lord Krell
12-10-2010, 06:11
So if this is true, there is going to be a rush on mounted chariots Every army that can get one will use it as it is a wonderfully cheap way to effectively transform your characters to monsters. This may be watershed moment for 8th

It would be nice if someone could put up a flow-chart style breakdown of what rules apply and when. What rules are used from characters, from chariots, from monsters, and from monster riders.

LOL, slightly exaggerated I think, but yeah, chariots should have a value, and be attractive to play. The whole idea is that it is a sturdy contraption providing some shelter on the battlefield. Regular crew benefit from this protection, but not a hero... because? Well no need to be logical, the rules really suggests that chariot rules apply, since they are outlined as
ALL chariot rules apply to "chariot mounts."
At least until you see that cannon ball come bouncing!

Let us look at it the other way around, if I am wrong, with what I postulate, then, will you use a character in an expensive chariot?

Considering that if the "chariot" rules do not apply to a character, it will be an expensive and very slow moving death trap, lots of cons, few pros.

What more, is that the sentence on page 105 stating ALL chariot rules apply, should definately be modified to, "almost none of the chariot rules apply."

For most players I think a regular mount for way less cost, providing a 1+ or a 2+ armor save and speed to break the sound barrier, the ability to join units, and other advantages chariots doesn't come with? Or fly around on a terror causing monster, that will actually tear things up along with your character, and keep fighting should your character die.

Aloha,
Lord Khrell

Morehammer
12-10-2010, 06:43
Characters use the Toughness, Strength, and Wounds characteristics of their Chariot as laid out in the Chariots rules. Characters and their Chariots can be attacked and killed separately in both close combat and from shooting in the manner laid out in the Ridden Monsters rules.

Thanks for the breakdown Shas and Krell. So from the above quote, do we assume that when I target the Krell's Khorne herald he too has 4 wounds? So if i do not kill him this turn, do we keep a separate tally for his chariot? So is it effectively an 8 wound model?

Well I am sure glad I brought this up. Funny it has not come up before. I guess it is nice to be part of the 8th edition debugging process:). I will wait to see how this conversation goes before I go chariot-crazy. As it is, the drawbacks are meager for what is a potential combat monster. For the points, under the above definition, a Khorne Herald chariot far out paces virtually everything else in the daemon list. And that's saying a lot!:)

Shas'O Vash
12-10-2010, 11:15
I think* what they had intended* was for chariots to be treated as a completely separate entity from the character riding it as we would expect from previous editions, but that's not what the rules really say. (However, they did completely change monstrous beast mounts.) Failing this, I think treating them as LK thinks* they should comes in a close second, but that's not what the rules really say either. I really don't believe anyone will run them as I stated in my post above, but that was the best I could do with the RAW and not ignore parts of the rules.

* The thoughts, opinions, and version of the authors intent stated in forums most likely have no semblance to the actual author's thoughts, opinions, and intent.

Shas'O Vash
12-10-2010, 11:39
I just wanted to put in my two cents on the argument over the wording of "crew" vs. "character". The dude sitting on a horse is a rider. The dude(s) standing in a chariot are the crew. The wording in the BRB is the same for both. If you're arguing that a character mounted on a chariot is not a part of the crew you are also arguing that a character mounted on a horse is not the rider. I know IRL you could ride in a chariot and not be the crew but we're not arguing RL.

RanaldLoec
12-10-2010, 11:47
A war alter that has the arch lector killed of has no crew but can carry on fighting as per the empire faq.

Just a footnote for any fellow empire players.

Shas'O Vash
12-10-2010, 12:07
A war alter that has the arch lector killed of has no crew but can carry on fighting as per the empire faq.

Just a footnote for any fellow empire players.

The same is true of the Tomb King FAQ actually.

Shas'O Vash
12-10-2010, 12:25
Thanks for the breakdown Shas and Krell. So from the above quote, do we assume that when I target the Krell's Khorne herald he too has 4 wounds? So if i do not kill him this turn, do we keep a separate tally for his chariot? So is it effectively an 8 wound model?

Unfortunently, this is indeed what I'm saying. I don't like it but it was the only thing I could come up with that didn't violate the RAW.


Well I am sure glad I brought this up. Funny it has not come up before. I guess it is nice to be part of the 8th edition debugging process:). I will wait to see how this conversation goes before I go chariot-crazy. As it is, the drawbacks are meager for what is a potential combat monster. For the points, under the above definition, a Khorne Herald chariot far out paces virtually everything else in the daemon list. And that's saying a lot!:)

I wouldn't go that far. A chariot is still a slow moving death trap for characters. Cannons are the great equalizer and keep the rest of us honest.

Chris_
12-10-2010, 12:26
It does state that a "chariot mount" is of a different troop type (troop type: chariot) than "monsterous mount" and it also clearly states that ALL chariot rules apply to a character in a chariot.

And yes, if the chariot dies, the crew and the mounts die as well, including any characters in it. Again, the chariot rules dictates: crew/mounts/chariot is treated like one (1) model for all purposes (page 86), and well yes you can "killing blow" the whole thing by targetting a character onboard (according to the FAQ).
As far as rules apply, it states on page 105: ALL rules for "chariots" and "characters" apply, OTHERWISE, rules for "ridden monster" apply, the CC section on page 106 talks about "monsterous mounts" in CC, not "chariot mounts" or "ridden monsters."

Thanks for the civil replies,
Aloha, Lord Khrell the Undead ChampionWell, the problem I have with this is I am 99% sure ( :D plus minus a few) that the general idea was that the character would be targetable even on a chariot. All the AB FAQ's point in this direction (see at least the WoC and Tomb Kings ones where they talk about this several times).
What the BRB says, however is sadly a bit different, at the very least it is very frustrating when all the FAQs contradict what is written. I can't really argue that much about what is written even though I think that you are putting to much weight on the "otherwise" in that sentence. But I am not going to argue this anymore as I can't really see any way around it right now.

Another question then, regarding the Tomb Kings where it says "displace" instead of "replace", would that maybe mean that they are seperate? The FAQ strongly implies this. If not that's another reason not to that the chariot, at least for the Tomb King.

geldedgoat
12-10-2010, 12:29
Erhm, what part of pages 105-106 would lead you to believe that characters adopt the W, T, and AS of a chariot? The two can be attacked separately and a chariot provides an AS bonus, but nowhere does it state that the character suddenly loses all of his defensive characteristics and has them replaced by the chariot's. A character, after all, is not equivalent to a crew member.

Eltharil
12-10-2010, 12:35
Erhm, what part of pages 105-106 would lead you to believe that characters adopt the W, T, and AS of a chariot? The two can be attacked separately and a chariot provides an AS bonus, but nowhere does it state that the character suddenly loses all of his defensive characteristics and has them replaced by the chariot's.

The character replace one of the crew, so they think he becames a part of the crew and then adopts W, T and As like chariot's crew.
It's sounds to me a bit out of the spirit of the game.

Shas'O Vash
12-10-2010, 12:42
Erhm, what part of pages 105-106 would lead you to believe that characters adopt the W, T, and AS of a chariot? The two can be attacked separately and a chariot provides an AS bonus, but nowhere does it state that the character suddenly loses all of his defensive characteristics and has them replaced by the chariot's. A character, after all, is not equivalent to a crew member.

Nothing on the pages you're referencing; you're on the wrong page. As stated several times before in this thread, the FAQ states that a character mounted on a chariot (or a horse or Pegasus) is of type Chariot (or Cavalry or Monstrous Cavalry) and uses ALL of its rules; all, not some. So go to page 85 (I think) and read up on what benefits and determents characters get from being mounted on chariots. This is the same technique that you would use to see what rules a character mounted on a horse or Pegasus would use. It says nowhere on pages 105-106 that a character mounted on a barded horse gets a +2 bonus to his armor save or that a character mounted on a Pegasus gets 3 wounds; you have to look in the relevant section.

Shas'O Vash
12-10-2010, 12:44
The character replace one of the crew, so they think he becames a part of the crew and then adopts W, T and As like chariot's crew.
It's sounds to me a bit out of the spirit of the game.

So does a two wound character that gets an extra wound for being mounted on a pegasus, but it's right there in black and white.

RanaldLoec
12-10-2010, 12:54
I've read through the character, chariot and ridden monster rules.

I disagree about using the chariots stats and save when rolling to wound and for armour saves.

Let's take a look at shooting you randomise the hits from shooting between the character and the chariot as per the ridden monster rules. This is because under chariot mount on pg 105 it tells us a chariot mount follows all the rules for ridden monsters.

If a character has taken a chariot as a mount, the whole model is treated as having the troop type 'chariot' and follows all the rules for both characters and chariot models. Characters riding on chariots cannot join other units.

A chariot mount otherwise follows all the rules for ridden monsters (see below), save for the fact that a chariot does not need to take a monster reaction test if the character is slain.

So if we randomise between the character and chariot we take into account that the chariot and character have separate stat lines, the chariot is the characters mount which uses the rules for ridden monsters.

The character uses his own stats and saves but just gains the benefit of +1 onto his/her/its armour save as per the ridden monster rules.

We don't use a dragons toughness if we hit the elf lord sat on top.

Don't confuse the combined profile of a chariots beast and crew with a characters.

The relationship between a chariot mount and character in game dynamics is defined as a character and mount with two separate and distinct profiles.

The chariot acts like any ridden monster eg if mounted on a dragon you use the dragons movement rules for charging, fleeing, pursueing etc

If mounted on a ''chariot mount'' you use all the chariots rules for movement, charging, fleeing pursuing etc.

Shas'O Vash
12-10-2010, 13:00
This is because under chariot mount on pg 185 it tells us a chariot mount follows all the rules for ridden monsters.

I don't have my rulebook with me here at work and didn't realize there was another section that talkes about this. Can you quote the rules on page 185 so I can get on the same page (sorry for the pun) as you are?

RanaldLoec
12-10-2010, 13:01
Hang on that posted before I was finished I've edited my above post it should make a little more sense now plus I've corrected the pg reference for '' chariot mount ''.

Eltharil
12-10-2010, 13:03
Chariot's profile applies to chariot's crew.
Replacing a crew doesn't mean character becames a crew himself.

Shas'O Vash
12-10-2010, 13:09
Chariot's profile applies to chariot's crew.
Replacing a crew doesn't mean character becames a crew himself.

The wording for the split profile of a chariot model (~p85) is damn near exactally the same as the wording for that of a cavalry model (~p81). I mean damn near exact! If you're arguing that a character on a chariot is not a split profile model you're basically arguing that a character on a horse is not a split profile model. Put the two rules sections right next to each other and read through them.

RanaldLoec
12-10-2010, 13:19
pg 105 for chariot mount my original post was made from my phone and my fingers are too fat to hit the tiny little touch screen thats why it read 185;)

geldedgoat
12-10-2010, 13:50
Chariot's profile applies to chariot's crew.
Replacing a crew doesn't mean character becames a crew himself.

This. Nowhere does it state that characters must be treated as crew members.

Shas'O Vash
12-10-2010, 13:57
pg 105 for chariot mount my original post was made from my phone and my fingers are too fat to hit the tiny little touch screen thats why it read 185;)

Ah, that makes sense. To get back to your original post:


This is because under chariot mount on pg 105 it tells us a chariot mount follows all the rules for ridden monsters.

The rules most certainly do not say this. The rules say to use the rules for Chariots and Characters, otherwise use the rules for Ridden Monsters.


If a character has taken a chariot as a mount, the whole model is treated as having the troop type 'chariot' and follows all the rules for both characters and chariot models. Characters riding on chariots cannot join other units.

A chariot mount otherwise follows all the rules for ridden monsters (see below), save for the fact that a chariot does not need to take a monster reaction test if the character is slain.

No disagreement there.


So if we randomise between the character and chariot we take into account that the chariot and character have separate stat lines, the chariot is the characters mount which uses the rules for ridden monsters.

This is very gray area. The rules and FAQ clearly state both sides. Also, you’re Begging the Question here; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question. You’re concluding that the character and chariot have separate stat lines by assuming the very point in question has already been decided.


The character uses his own stats and saves but just gains the benefit of +1 onto his/her/its armour save as per the ridden monster rules.

This directly conflicts with the rules and FAQ that have been stated above.


We don't use a dragons toughness if we hit the elf lord sat on top.

No argument.


Don't confuse the combined profile of a chariots beast and crew with a characters.

Begging the Question again. This is the very point of the argument.


The relationship between a chariot mount and character in game dynamics is defined as a character and mount with two separate and distinct profiles.

Where is this explicitly defined? The converse is most definitely explicitly defined but this is only implied. The army specific FAQs very strongly imply this so I agree this argument this cannot be ignored.


The chariot acts like any ridden monster eg if mounted on a dragon you use the dragons movement rules for charging, fleeing, pursueing etc

If mounted on a ''chariot mount'' you use all the chariots rules for movement, charging, fleeing pursuing etc.

No argument.

Before this thread gets any more heated I just want to state the by RAW, there is no correct answer to this question. If we use Lord Krell’s version we are in direct conflict with certain rules and FAQs. If we use RanaldLoec’s version we are also in direct conflict with other rules and FAQs. If we use my version we are not in any direct conflicts with rules or FAQs but we do have to kind of ‘make things up as we go along’; which in a permissive rule set like WHFB is largely against RAW. RAI doesn’t enter into it. RAI is like an opinion which is like *********: Everybody has one and they all stink.

RanaldLoec
12-10-2010, 14:20
A character on a ''chariot mount'' has a releationship of a character on a ridden monster as per pg 105.

A character on a ridden monster uses separate stat lines.

A character on a chariot is on a ''mount'' which is an option in the characters unit entry.

Your assuming that the general rules for troop type ''chariot'' rules from pg 86, overides the the rules for chariot mount from page 105

Direct from the brb
'' If a character has taken a chariot as a mount, the whole model is treated as having the troop type 'chariot' and follows all the rules for both characters and chariot models. Characters riding on chariots cannot join other units.

A chariot mount otherwise follows all the rules for ridden monsters (see below), save for the fact that a chariot does not need to take a monster reaction test if the character is slain.''

Characters are treated as having the troop type ''chariot'' then the important bit ''otherwise follows all the rules for ridden monsters'', meaning you choose who to target in close combat, randomise hits from shooting and use each of the separate profiles to wound, armour save.

If striking the chariot in close combat you would use the crews WS if targeting the character you would use the characters WS. As per the brb FAQ so how does this point towards a combined profile.

Your assuming that the character is just combining his profile with the chariot no where is that indicated in the brb or faq if anything it all specifys the separation of the ''chariot mount'' profile and ''character'' profile.

The only part of the ''chariot mount'' that the character adopts is its troop type for movement. The brb faq even states that if a character unmounted is classed as infantry it can suffer from killing blow regardless of what its mounted on.

Under your combined profile approach this would not be possible as chariots cannot be killing blow'ed except by heroic killing blow.

I fail to see were the logic in your argument is based you state that what I'm saying contradicts the faq's and brb but fail to provide any examples.

Shas'O Vash
12-10-2010, 15:03
A character on a ''chariot mount'' has a releationship of a character on a ridden monster as per pg 105.

That is not what the rules say. I’m not going to repeat my entire argument but to summarize: The wording for characters with cavalry and chariot mounts are on pages 104-105 are identical. If you say that one doesn’t mean what it says then the other doesn’t mean what it says. In other words: If you say a character does not inherit the rules of a chariot by having a troop type of Chariot, a character does not inherit the rules for cavalry by having troop type Cavalry. “Otherwise follow the rules for ridden monsters” means just that: “Otherwise.”


A character on a ridden monster uses separate stat lines.

That’s not decided. (Begging the Question)


Your assuming that the general rules for troop type ''chariot'' rules from pg 86, overides the the rules for chariot mount from page 105

I’m not assuming anything and nothing is being overridden; this is what it says. Page 105 defers completely to page 86. The FAQ ruling stated earlier explicitly defends this. How can something say “see this rule” and then override it without saying anything that could override it?


Direct from the brb
'' If a character has taken a chariot as a mount, the whole model is treated as having the troop type 'chariot' and follows all the rules for both characters and chariot models. Characters riding on chariots cannot join other units.

A chariot mount otherwise follows all the rules for ridden monsters (see below), save for the fact that a chariot does not need to take a monster reaction test if the character is slain.''

Yup. This is exactly the point. This rule quote seems to be in direct conflict with itself doesn’t it?


Characters are treated as having the troop type ''chariot'' then the important bit ''otherwise follows all the rules for ridden monsters'', meaning you choose who to target in close combat, randomise hits from shooting and use each of the separate profiles to wound, armour save.

Now you’re the one making assumptions. Nowhere does it say that the rules for Ridden Monsters override the rules for Chariots. In fact the FAQ and rules explicitly sate the contrary.


If striking the chariot in close combat you would use the crews WS if targeting the character you would use the characters WS. As per the brb FAQ so how does this point towards a combined profile.

It doesn’t. This quote points to two separate profiles; which I’ve stated before multiple times. Quit putting words in my mouth.


Your assuming that the character is just combining his profile with the chariot no where is that indicated in the brb or faq if anything it all specifys the separation of the ''chariot mount'' profile and ''character'' profile.

You’re ignoring the BRB, FAQ, and my earlier posts. I’ve stated the arguments for this quite in depth already and I don’t feel like repeating myself. Why don’t’ you provide some arguments as opposed to simply stating your conclusions for a change.


The only part of the ''chariot mount'' that the character adopts is its troop type for movement.

Oh really. I’m fairly certain that the FAQ states that “all” rules are adopted. Who are you to say which rules are and are not included under “all” rules banner? You’re off making assumptions again.


The brb faq even states that if a character unmounted is classed as infantry it can suffer from killing blow regardless of what its mounted on.

Under your combined profile approach this would not be possible as chariots cannot be killing blow'ed except by heroic killing blow.

Oh wow; where to begin… First off, the FAQ states this not the BRB. Secondly, I’ve never argued against the effects of KB on chariot mounted characters. Thirdly, and again, quit putting words in my mouth that I’ve never said.


I fail to see were the logic in your argument is based you state that what I'm saying contradicts the faq's and brb but fail to provide any examples.

I provided a rather in depth and lengthy argument (with appropriate references to BRB and FAQ rules and pages) as to why characters that are mounted on chariots behave the way they do at the beginning of this thread; perhaps you didn’t read it as I didn’t include any pictures. I just don’t like to repeat myself. I could copy and paste that post into a new post if you’d like. Here is the link if you’d like:


Alright, I'm done with my research.

That being said, most of your arguments are not really arguments; they are conclusions. Consider the following two excerpts from your last post:


Characters are treated as having the troop type ''chariot'' then the important bit ''otherwise follows all the rules for ridden monsters'', meaning you choose who to target in close combat, randomise hits from shooting and use each of the separate profiles to wound, armour save.

How did you come to this conclusion? What train of thought were you using?


The only part of the ''chariot mount'' that the character adopts is its troop type for movement.

Nowhere does it say this. No rules from either side of the argument even begin to support this. This conclusion is completely fabricated. There is a complete logical disconnect from what the rules say and what you are saying here.

decker_cky
12-10-2010, 15:25
The character isn't part of a combined profile. You're making a clear situation ambiguous by ignoring cues on how to read the sentence. The line about Monster Reaction test (and several FAQs) talk about the character being slain from the chariot. From that, we know the proper way to interpret the rules is with a character who is separable from the chariot.

As much as I'd love for razorgor chariots to give my shaman T5 and 5 wounds, it doesn't work like that.

Shas'O Vash
12-10-2010, 16:05
The character isn't part of a combined profile. […] The line about Monster Reaction test (and several FAQs) talk about the character being slain from the chariot. From that, we know the proper way to interpret the rules is with a character who is separable from the chariot.

I don’t disagree with that interpretation. (Point in fact I happen to agree with it.) That being said, this interpretation violates the BRB and FAQ just as much as its opposing argument does. The FAQ ruling that characters inherit all the rules for chariots when mounted on chariots and the BRB stating that characters mounted on chariots are Chariots first and otherwise Ridden Monsters is just as defendable an interpretation as yours is. Is this the way chariots have been played in the past? No. But that doesn’t mean anything as they also changed how characters riding monstrous beasts behave compared to how they used to behave.

I just want to point out one more time that the wording in the BRB to support a character on a horse (~p81) as being a combined profile model, the wording for a character on a Pegasus (~p82) as being a combined profile model, and the wording for a character on a chariot (p85) as being a combined profile model are all identical. Let me say that again: The wording is identical! The FAQ also explicitly supports the inheritance of these rule sets.

Arguing that a character on a horse is just as much treated as a combined profile model as a character on a chariot is totally in line with the FAQ and BRB with the exception of the BRB stating that chariots can be killed separate from the character and the FAQ stating that they can be attacked in CC separately. Annoyingly enough, this second set of BRB and FAQ rules directly contradict the first set of BRB and FAQ rules that state that a chariot mounted character behaves just like a combined profile chariot. Which leads me back to my position that there is no right answer because the BRB and FAQ gloriously contradict the BRB and FAQ.


As much as I'd love for razorgor chariots to give my shaman T5 and 5 wounds, it doesn't work like that.

It would be nice, wouldn’t it? If only you could convince your opponent…

geldedgoat
12-10-2010, 16:23
A character can inherit all the rules for chariots and yet remain a separate component as nowhere in the rules for characters or chariots does it state that characters become crew members.

RMacDeezy
12-10-2010, 16:38
but what if the chariot has no crew except for the character?

RanaldLoec
12-10-2010, 16:51
That is not what the rules say. I’m not going to repeat my entire argument but to summarize: The wording for characters with cavalry and chariot mounts are on pages 104-105 are identical. If you say that one doesn’t mean what it says then the other doesn’t mean what it says. In other words: If you say a character does not inherit the rules of a chariot by having a troop type of Chariot, a character does not inherit the rules for cavalry by having troop type Cavalry. “Otherwise follow the rules for ridden monsters” means just that: “Otherwise.”



That’s not decided. (Begging the Question)



I’m not assuming anything and nothing is being overridden; this is what it says. Page 105 defers completely to page 86. The FAQ ruling stated earlier explicitly defends this. How can something say “see this rule” and then override it without saying anything that could override it?



Yup. This is exactly the point. This rule quote seems to be in direct conflict with itself doesn’t it?



Now you’re the one making assumptions. Nowhere does it say that the rules for Ridden Monsters override the rules for Chariots. In fact the FAQ and rules explicitly sate the contrary.



It doesn’t. This quote points to two separate profiles; which I’ve stated before multiple times. Quit putting words in my mouth.



You’re ignoring the BRB, FAQ, and my earlier posts. I’ve stated the arguments for this quite in depth already and I don’t feel like repeating myself. Why don’t’ you provide some arguments as opposed to simply stating your conclusions for a change.



Oh really. I’m fairly certain that the FAQ states that “all” rules are adopted. Who are you to say which rules are and are not included under “all” rules banner? You’re off making assumptions again.



Oh wow; where to begin… First off, the FAQ states this not the BRB. Secondly, I’ve never argued against the effects of KB on chariot mounted characters. Thirdly, and again, quit putting words in my mouth that I’ve never said.



I provided a rather in depth and lengthy argument (with appropriate references to BRB and FAQ rules and pages) as to why characters that are mounted on chariots behave the way they do at the beginning of this thread; perhaps you didn’t read it as I didn’t include any pictures. I just don’t like to repeat myself. I could copy and paste that post into a new post if you’d like. Here is the link if you’d like:



That being said, most of your arguments are not really arguments; they are conclusions. Consider the following two excerpts from your last post:



How did you come to this conclusion? What train of thought were you using?



Nowhere does it say this. No rules from either side of the argument even begin to support this. This conclusion is completely fabricated. There is a complete logical disconnect from what the rules say and what you are saying here.

Ok your argument is that the character will use the chariots toughness, wounds and armour save am I right.

Ok I will use nothing other than examples from the BRB, army books, errata’s and FAQ’s I will add my comments in (like this)



BRB

PG 86 Split Profile

In a similar manner to cavalry, a chariot has more than one set of characteristics, one for the beasts, one for the crew and one for the chariot itself, and is treated as a single model.

When moving , the chariot model always uses the Movement characteristics of the beasts, although as the beasts are some what slowed by the chariot chassis, a chariot cannot march.

(So we know there are split profiles for crew, beasts and chariot but they are counted as a single model can we agree on this. I won’t bother adding the example profile)

The crew and beasts the beasts use their own weapon skill, strength, initiative and attacks characteristics when they attack.

(The next bit just talks about whom and where beasts, crew can attack in close combat and about which BS to use when shooting. Can we agree that this isn’t relevant to the point we disagree about if not I will add it in)

The wounds toughness and armour saves of the crew are never used – hits are resolved against the chariots wounds, toughness and armour saves. It is the crews WS that is used for the purposes of the enemy rolling to hit, just as with the cavalry.

We assume the crew are in complete control of the beasts that pull the chariot, so the beasts LD is never used.

(the sections after this discuss impact hits, supporting attacks, special rules such as if beasts suffer from stupidity, cause fear and how this effects the model, armour saves, chariots and terrain, charging fleeing and pursuing, chariots and buildings, and not getting stomp attacks. The important bit is above regarding profiles and wounds do we agree).

BRB faq

Q: Can a model in a challenge direct his attacks against an enemy character’s chariot or monstrous mount? Pg103
A: Yes

( So a character can be targeted separately to his chariot, his chariot would use its crews weaponskill. So will the character use his own WS?)

Q: Does killing blow work against a mounted character regardless of what he is mounted on? Pg72
A: Yes, as long as the character would count as an infantry model if it wasn’t mounted.

(Ok so we can killing blow a character on a chariot EG an Arch Lector on a War Alter is classed as infantry troop type if not mounted so we can slay him using killing blow)

So your saying were using the War Alters wounds toughness and save profile for the Arch Lector. So the Arch Lectors profile is boosted from T4 W3 to T5 W5 with a 5+ save.

We can killing blow the Arch Lector as per the above faq, your saying we use the chariots T and W so then the whole chariot dies with the Arch Lector if he is slain by killing blow).

The Empire faq

Q: If the Arch Lector riding atop the War Alter is killed, is the War Alter removed from play? Pg53
A: No

(No that’s impossible as we know as per your view that characters on a chariot can be slain by killing blow from the BRB faq and as per your view we use the chariots toughness and wounds for the mounted character, so if a character can be slain by killing blow then the chariot dies with him as the chariots and characters wounds are the same.

Yet this faq question states the war alter a ‘’chariot’’ unit type is not removed when the character the arch lector is removed so how can this be).

Battle Rule Book
Chariot Mount Pg 105

If a character has taken a chariot as a mount, the whole model is treated as having the troop type 'chariot' and follows all the rules for both characters and chariot models. Characters riding on chariots cannot join other units.

(Follows all the rules for chariots and characters quite simple the character can choose magic weapons, tailsmens, armour etc)

A chariot mount otherwise follows all the rules for ridden monsters (see below), save for the fact that a chariot does not need to take a monster reaction test if the character is slain.

(Now why do we need the ridden monster reference as per your view the character and chariot are a combined wounds, toughness and armour save profile so we don’t need to refer to the ridden monster entry for any reason as the rules cover split profiles.)

Now your saying that a character uses the toughness wounds and armour save of the chariot so what if a character takes magic armour does this add to the chariots.

I’m basing my argument on evidenace the above entrys in black are my exhibits. When compared to your view and these exhibits contradict your point of view not the brb and the faqs.

So here is my question please provide a pg reference and quote for combining a characters wounds and toughness with a chariot?

Show me a pg number and reference that states the character becomes a member of the chariots crew?

Ther BRB refers to a characters chariot as a ‘’chariot mount’’ and then refers us to the ‘’ridden monster’’ rule as the chariot rule does not actually cover how a character interacts with a chariot only the crew and the beast.

And as I pointed out the character is not referred to as a crew member any where and there is no mention of combining the character and chariots profile.

And look how many other Warseer members disagree with your view.

You may not agree with my view point but you have to admit that the quality of the evidence is not on the scale of probabilities it is beyond reasonable doubt.

RanaldLoec
12-10-2010, 16:57
Until you can provide me with a direct quote that provides a counter point to the examples I have provided I will leave it at that

geldedgoat
12-10-2010, 17:05
but what if the chariot has no crew except for the character?

Then you have a character riding a chariot with no crew.

Lord_Elric
12-10-2010, 17:10
In other word you like the idea that u can protect a character by boosting his wounds, toughness, and save just by putting him on a chariot so your refusing to belive its not true because of your own interpretation of the rules lets u do it that way. In my own opinion the chariot follow the rules a chariot with one less crew member (with regards to movement, etc etc) but follow the rules for a ridden monster in terms of it being a character mount (the character being shot off it, directing attacks in combat)

Personaly i think the character is better off being a rider as if the whole model isnt lost if one half of it is removed. U can lose the character and fight on with the chariot and vice versa. But that is my opinon and ive no doubt many will just say im wrong because of the assumed bonus u get from lookin at it the other way. Looking at the arguement both sides can be seen as RAW so its unlikly to besettled by anything less than faq.

Shas'O Vash
12-10-2010, 17:12
A character can inherit all the rules for chariots and yet remain a separate component as nowhere in the rules for characters or chariots does it state that characters become crew members.

I think you meant to say “cannot”.

I also think I argued before that a dude sitting on a horse is by definition a rider and a dude standing on a chariot is by definition a crewman. I think from a rules stand point this can almost be argued as being a Tautology, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic). If you don’t look at this way then a character mounted on a horse is not a rider (as it does not explicitly state he is) and does not benefit from the improved armor save, as only the rider can benefit from that.

All that aside, as I was going to lunch it occurred to me that in my last post I argued for and against both Lord Krell’s and RanaldLoec’s interpretations of the rules but didn’t argue for or against my pure RAW interpretation. To cut this post short it basically goes like this: A chariot mounted character counts as a chariot for all rules purposes, as it explicitly states in the FAQ. As the rules for chariots explicitly state the crew’s toughness, wounds, and armor save are never used, the character uses the chariot’s stats. The rules and the FAQ implicitly and explicitly state that the character is indeed treated as a separate target so this has to be acknowledged. However, nothing explicitly removes the chariot rules that the chariot’s stats are used therefore you still have to use them.

Does this interpretation violate the RAW in any way? No, not really. Is this interpretation messy? Yes, very. Is anyone going to go along with this? Hell, no!

For better or worse, either Lord Krell’s or RanaldLoec’s has to be right as the compromise is just weird. RAI is arguable either way. Lord Krell’s goes along with how monstrous cavalry work now. RanaldLoec’s goes along with how we’ve always treated characters on chariots. Personally, in the absence of a consistent rules set, I would fall back on the last rules set that makes sense.

If GW ever gave me the power to change the FAQs, here’s what I would say to make everything consistent:

Q: Does a character have a troop type? If yes, do all of the rules that apply to that troop type apply to the character? And will the character be affected by special attacks or spells that affect that troop type? (p96) A: Yes, with the exception of Chariots. The Chariot, and any crewmen separate from the character continue to act as a split profile unit in accordance with the Chariot rules. The character and the Chariot model interact in accordance with the Ridden Monster rules.”

P.S. As I write this I just noticed that this FAQ quote is referring to page 96. What the Hell is on page 96? I don’t have my rulebook here at work. This whole argument may be rendered a moot point. I'm greatly suprised that no one has noticed this before now.

Oops, sorry RanaldLoec and others. You all posted while I was writting this. This post should explain most of what you were asking. I'd still like to know what's on page 96 though.

Shas'O Vash
12-10-2010, 17:23
In other word you like the idea that u can protect a character by boosting his wounds, toughness, and save just by putting him on a chariot so your refusing to belive its not true because of your own interpretation of the rules lets u do it that way. In my own opinion the chariot follow the rules a chariot with one less crew member (with regards to movement, etc etc) but follow the rules for a ridden monster in terms of it being a character mount (the character being shot off it, directing attacks in combat)

Personaly i think the character is better off being a rider as if the whole model isnt lost if one half of it is removed. U can lose the character and fight on with the chariot and vice versa. But that is my opinon and ive no doubt many will just say im wrong because of the assumed bonus u get from lookin at it the other way. Looking at the arguement both sides can be seen as RAW so its unlikly to besettled by anything less than faq.

Personllay, I think regaurdless of the rules a chariot is a death trap for a character.

decker_cky
12-10-2010, 17:26
You argued a lot of stuff....but your argument depends on 5-6 rules being flat out ignored. We know the character is separate because there's 5-6 quotes referring to that. Argue what you want - you're wrong. GW has shown how it is intended to be played, and all of the stuff contained in the FAQs are rules as much as those in the rulebook.

This isn't a confusing rule. You can stir up a lot of dust, but it's still a clear situation even if you don't want it to be.

Shas'O Vash
12-10-2010, 17:31
Ok... Doesn't anybody actually read my posts? What's on page 96?

Shas'O Vash
12-10-2010, 17:38
I was going to wait to see what's on page 96 before I responded to this but I decided to go ahead anyway.


You argued a lot of stuff....but your argument depends on 5-6 rules being flat out ignored. We know the character is separate because there's 5-6 quotes referring to that. Argue what you want - you're wrong. GW has shown how it is intended to be played, and all of the stuff contained in the FAQs are rules as much as those in the rulebook.

This isn't a confusing rule. You can stir up a lot of dust, but it's still a clear situation even if you don't want it to be.

Which rules am I ignoring? The rules to support your version or the rules to support Lord Krell's version? In order for either version to be accepted as RAW a few rules must be ignored. (I reserve the right to retract this when I find out what's on page 96.) My compramise version ignores no rules but does interpret some rather loosly to get everything to fit together somewhat seemlessly.

AMWOOD co
12-10-2010, 17:39
Question for everyone to consider, what benefits other than the now defenct killing blow issue would result from the model being considered a chariot? The immediate example is that a character mounted on a chariot is immune to stomp attacks.

My opinion is that the character will use his own toughness and wounds value. I understand that several books use the word 'replaces' one of the crew, but not all of them. The Greenskin book, for example, uses the term 'displaces'. The Daemons of Chaos book makes no mention one way or the other whether the character is crew or not.

Now, I don't have my rulebook here right now (it's at a friend's place as we had to cut our gaming time off yesterday), so I can't add direct quotes. I would state that the idea of the character being considered the 'crew' of a chariot in the idea of using his profile is ubsurd as it would directly contradict several of the FAQ answers that have been presented when taken to the inevitable conclusion (reductio ad absurdum).

Now, I must admit I've never considered this arguement before as chariots have been seperable from characters for as long as I've played them. Still, the conclusions of the opposing arguement are not supported by GW's FAQ statements.

geldedgoat
12-10-2010, 18:04
I think you meant to say “cannot”.

No, I meant what I said and said what I meant.


I also think I argued before that a dude sitting on a horse is by definition a rider and a dude standing on a chariot is by definition a crewman. [...] If you don’t look at this way then a character mounted on a horse is not a rider (as it does not explicitly state he is) and does not benefit from the improved armor save, as only the rider can benefit from that.

Page 105, sidebar entitled 'Riding High'.

Shas'O Vash
12-10-2010, 18:06
Page 105, sidebar entitled 'Riding High'.

Don't have my book. I can reply when I get home in a few hours.

decker_cky
12-10-2010, 18:20
Which rules am I ignoring? The rules to support your version or the rules to support Lord Krell's version? In order for either version to be accepted as RAW a few rules must be ignored. (I reserve the right to retract this when I find out what's on page 96.) My compramise version ignores no rules but does interpret some rather loosly to get everything to fit together somewhat seemlessly.

Every rule referencing the chariot and character dying separately. Every rule allowing character to be singled out. The reference to monster reaction tests.

For it all to count as one, we're missing a rule saying "the character counts as crew." Without that....you need an assumption to legally do everything else you claim. Without any assumption like that, the separate character and chariot interpretation holds together. It also doesn't ignore several FAQs (which are rules).

Shas'O Vash
12-10-2010, 18:29
Without a rulebook at my fingertips I can no longer argue this as there are a few things that have been brought up that I need to reference. I'll get back to you.

Lord Inquisitor
12-10-2010, 18:59
Agreed. Absurd reading of the rules seem to be crawling out of the woodwork.

Let's dissect this (again).

"If a character has taken a chariot as a mount, the whole model is treated as having the troop type 'chariot' and follows all the rules for both characters and chariot models. Characters riding on chariots cannot join other units."

This is pretty much IDENTICAL to the text for ridden monsters, with the exception that "chariot" is replaced with "ridden monster".

"If a character has a ridden monster, the whole model is treated as having the troop type monster and thus follows all the rules for both characters and monster models. Characters on a ridden monster cannot join other units."

Back to chariots:

"A chariot mount otherwise follows all the rules for ridden monsters... save for the fact that a chariot does not need to take a Monster Reaction test if the character is slain."

So OTHER than the fact that a character on a chariot counts as a unit type "chariot" instead of "monster" (DUUUUUH), which is the ONLY difference between the two rules, it counts as a ridden monster. The only other exception is that chariots do not need to make Monster Reaction tests if the character is slain - which rather implies that the character/chariot is not a single entity otherwise it would be impossible to kill the character independently and no way a Monster Reaction test could be triggered.

Clearly the intent is that characters on chariots are treated like characters on monsters and no, you don't get the chariot's Toughness. Trying to claim some ridiculous RAW is quite simply not playing by the rules. The rules are clear.

Honestly, you'd think it were Easter around this part of the boards recently.

Lord Krell
12-10-2010, 19:12
I find it interesting that many of you seem to ignore the reasoning Shas'O Vash or myself are using, by simply looking at what the rulebook is stating.
At this point I am not going to repeat references to what the book states (because it is listed above), but the counter arguments made against Shas'O Vash are lacking support (for the most).

As Shas'o Vash even pointed out when replying to some of the posts... "where does it say that?" He himself refered to support for his arguments, EVERY time.

We acknowledge that there are contratictions between some of the rules, but in these cases you must look at the stratification of importance, simply that "chariot" and "character" rules was listed as ALL apply. And then secondary "ridden monsters" is listed as "otherwise" apply.

The ones arguing against Shas'o Vash bring forth "ridden monster" and even "monsterous mount" rules as default, and down play the importance of what the rulebook and FAQ actually say about "chariots" and "characters." Many times some of the arguments you make, seem to be personal statements with no support in the actual rules.
Ranaldloec you list statements or answers Shas'o Vash made, but then don't answer them individually, or just ignore other strong points Shas'o Vash made. While again, he actually took the time and effort to answer all your statements.

I am sure we all have our idea how we want the rules to be like, and I can tell that some seem to read the rules they want, and ignore the rest.

Decker_cky jumps in and adds his own interpetation, again without responding to strong arguments made for the opposit. The addition of another person pointing to one line, and ignoring 10 paragraphs, doesn't really help.

We can take a vote on this, but again, it wouldn't help, unless there is clear reasoning presented.

We can all go and play a GT and see what the ruling is, but until then, we have to do our best with reading the rules and trying to play accordingly, OR we can simply play with "house rules" if we don't agree. BUT I know many of us wants an understanding and agreement (that's why we come here).

So please, if you intend to add a reply, read previous posts before adding redundant information and clutter the post.

Aloha, Lord Khrell

decker_cky
12-10-2010, 19:14
Krell....the character isn't a crew member. Your glass house falls down.

Lord Krell
12-10-2010, 19:29
Krell....the character isn't a crew member. Your glass house falls down.
Where did you find that? An assumption it sounds like.
My glass house? Mmm, your way at relating to others is... interesting.


So OTHER than the fact that a character on a chariot counts as a unit type "chariot" instead of "monster" (DUUUUUH), which is the ONLY difference between the two rules, it counts as a ridden monster. The only other exception is that chariots do not need to make Monster Reaction tests if the character is slain - which rather implies that the character/chariot is not a single entity otherwise it would be impossible to kill the character independently and no way a Monster Reaction test could be triggered.

Conveniently ignoring, that ALL chariot rules apply.
Reason there is no monster reaction, is simply that either 1) it doesn't apply, because if one die they both die 2) a car doesn't drive itself 2) the remaining crew drives the chariot
Cannot state I know the right answer, but you seem sure of yourself, and
DUUUUUH again shows how much respect you have for others.

Riding High

Yes if anything it states the character gets some juicy special rules the mount comes with, in this case the chariot mount...
Aloha, Lord Khrell

decker_cky
12-10-2010, 19:44
Where did you find that? An assumption it sounds like.

Nothing says he becomes a crew. It's not an assumption to not add words where there isn't. He's a rider, not crew. Riders on chariots aren't given any benefits as you describe. Better fill in the rules for riders from ridden monsters.

Oh look! Suddenly all the rules and FAQs line up. This must be the correct interpretation.

Lord Inquisitor
12-10-2010, 19:59
Conveniently ignoring, that ALL chariot rules apply.
Reason there is no monster reaction, is simply that either 1) it doesn't apply, because if one die they both die 2) a car doesn't drive itself 2) the remaining crew drives the chariot
Cannot state I know the right answer,
Because your interpretation flat out contradicts it. You can't explain this because to your intepretation it is an entirely superflous rule - more than that, it's nonsensical. If the character is merely part of the chariot, then it is impossible to kill the character and still have a chariot with which to take a test on. Yet on the assumption that the character is treated exactly like a character riding a riden monster (like the rule says), then that line stops being nonsensical and starts making sense - a chariot with a dead character operates like a ridden monster with a dead character except that it doesn't take a MRT.

YES I get what you are saying. It is logically sound, but blatantly entirely wrong. One reading of the rule results in a substantial benefit to characters and a meaningless rule that you don't know what it's there for, the other resolves the rules in a consistent manner with the army books and allows the "MRT" clause to be meaningful. Never mind that, how about the clause "A chariot mount otherwise follows all the rules for ridden monsters" ... if it's a split profile unit, how many of the monsters rules would actually apply?

- character and his ridden monster can be attacked separately (no)
- the character may find himself unhorsed (no)
- ridden monsters and armour saves (no)
- shooting at ridden monsters (no)
- templates (no)
- monster mounts in combat (no)
- slain riders or mounts (no)

So what you're saying is that when it says "a chariot mount otherwise follows all the rules for ridden monsters" it actually means "a chariot mount otherwise follows NONE of the rules for ridden monsters". Yeah, that's clearly the intent of the rule. :rolleyes:

There are two ways of reading this rule. One makes the rules unintelligible by your own admission, hinges on the character being defined as part of the crew, ignores the clear intent of the rules and the repetition of the wording between chariots and monsters and finally ignores and renders nonsensical the FAQs on the subject. The other makes the rules work in a consistent manner, apart from the unit type chariot, it counts as a character riding a monster in all respects. It solves the MRT issue and means that they actually follow all the rules for ridden monsters.

One interpretation is so blatantly incorrect as a way of actually playing the rules it's not even funny. You'd get more respectful replies if we were discussing something that wasn't an obvious easter egg and not even a good one at that.

Eltharil
12-10-2010, 20:06
I think you meant to say “cannot”.

I also think I argued before that a dude sitting on a horse is by definition a rider and a dude standing on a chariot is by definition a crewman. I think from a rules stand point this can almost be argued as being a Tautology, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic). If you don’t look at this way then a character mounted on a horse is not a rider (as it does not explicitly state he is) and does not benefit from the improved armor save, as only the rider can benefit from that.


The fact is in real life, the character would be en effective crewman. That's what make you think : "a dude sitting on a horse is by definition a rider and a dude standing on a chariot is by definition a crewman".

But Battle is not real life, it's a game with rules...and those rules doesn't always fit to reality. GW says our character with a chariot mount is like a character riding a monster. So in Battle 8th, a dude sitting on a chariot is a rider, not a crewman.

(This is strange compare with real life, but that's what rules are saying.
For GW, crew, mounts wheels and stuff are spare parts of a chariot. That's why their profile is combined.)

the Nurge
12-10-2010, 20:11
"If a character has taken a chariot as a mount, the whole model is treated as having the troop type 'chariot' and follows all the rules for both characters and chariot models. Characters riding on chariots cannot join other units."

This is pretty much IDENTICAL to the text for ridden monsters, with the exception that "chariot" is replaced with "ridden monster".

"If a character has a ridden monster, the whole model is treated as having the troop type monster and thus follows all the rules for both characters and monster models. Characters on a ridden monster cannot join other units."

Back to chariots:

"A chariot mount otherwise follows all the rules for ridden monsters... save for the fact that a chariot does not need to take a Monster Reaction test if the character is slain."

So OTHER than the fact that a character on a chariot counts as a unit type "chariot" instead of "monster" (DUUUUUH), which is the ONLY difference between the two rules, it counts as a ridden monster. The only other exception is that chariots do not need to make Monster Reaction tests if the character is slain - which rather implies that the character/chariot is not a single entity otherwise it would be impossible to kill the character independently and no way a Monster Reaction test could be triggered.

Clearly the intent is that characters on chariots are treated like characters on monsters and no, you don't get the chariot's Toughness. Trying to claim some ridiculous RAW is quite simply not playing by the rules. The rules are clear.


I applaud your common sense!
This is a non-argument to me as the rules are perfectly clear. The character on a chariot acts as a ridden monster, making him separate from his mount (which just so happens to be a chariot). Stop over thinking this.

Lord_Elric
12-10-2010, 20:13
Personllay, I think regaurdless of the rules a chariot is a death trap for a character.

Personaly I 100% agree with you on that sir! Chariots are so easily dealt with (though thats coming from a long term dark elf player lol)

the Nurge
12-10-2010, 20:18
Remember in Jurassic Park when they had to use frog DNA to fill gaps in the dino DNA sequence? Otherwise they'd have been making retarded dinosaurs. Well, in this metaphor the Dino DNA is the rule set and the frog DNA is common sense. Let's just hope it doesn't backfire and kill us all like in the movie... :D

Lord Krell
12-10-2010, 20:39
Originally Posted by Lord Krell
Conveniently ignoring, that ALL chariot rules apply.
Reason there is no monster reaction, is simply that either 1) it doesn't apply, because if one die they both die 2) a car doesn't drive itself 2) the remaining crew drives the chariot
Cannot state I know the right answer,
Because your interpretation flat out contradicts it. You can't explain this because to your intepretation it is an entirely superflous rule - more than that, it's nonsensical. If the character is merely part of the chariot, then it is impossible to kill the character and still have a chariot with which to take a test on. Yet on the assumption that the character is treated exactly like a character riding a riden monster (like the rule says), then that line stops being nonsensical and starts making sense - a chariot with a dead character operates like a ridden monster with a dead character except that it doesn't take a MRT.

YES I get what you are saying. It is logically sound, but blatantly entirely wrong. One reading of the rule results in a substantial benefit to characters and a meaningless rule that you don't know what it's there for, the other resolves the rules in a consistent manner with the army books and allows the "MRT" clause to be meaningful. Never mind that, how about the clause "A chariot mount otherwise follows all the rules for ridden monsters" ... if it's a split profile unit, how many of the monsters rules would actually apply?

- character and his ridden monster can be attacked separately (no)
- the character may find himself unhorsed (no)
- ridden monsters and armour saves (no)
- shooting at ridden monsters (no)
- templates (no)
- monster mounts in combat (no)
- slain riders or mounts (no)

So what you're saying is that when it says "a chariot mount otherwise follows all the rules for ridden monsters" it actually means "a chariot mount otherwise follows NONE of the rules for ridden monsters". Yeah, that's clearly the intent of the rule.

There are two ways of reading this rule. One makes the rules unintelligible by your own admission, hinges on the character being defined as part of the crew, ignores the clear intent of the rules and the repetition of the wording between chariots and monsters and finally ignores and renders nonsensical the FAQs on the subject. The other makes the rules work in a consistent manner, apart from the unit type chariot, it counts as a character riding a monster in all respects. It solves the MRT issue and means that they actually follow all the rules for ridden monsters.

One interpretation is so blatantly incorrect as a way of actually playing the rules it's not even funny. You'd get more respectful replies if we were discussing something that wasn't an obvious easter egg and not even a good one at that.

Under the section on "Ridden Monsters" it outlines that characters riding a monster it doesn't not use the rules for cavalry or monsterous cavalry...
If a character rides a monster the whole model is treated as having the troop type "monster" and thus follows all the rules for both characters and monster models.
In this case in the paragraph above you ask me to ignore that it specifically states under the heading "chariot mounts" that a character in a chariot is considered troop type "chariot" and that he specifically follows ALL rules for "chariots" and "characters"...
Your interpetation is only constent with the section under "ridden monster" and thus ignores "chariot". So according to you, a character in a chariot is then, troop type "monster" and now follows all rules for "monster" and "character" because that is what the "ridden monster" section states.
However, you might want to look at what the section above "Chariot Mount" states. And feel free to ignore it at your own leisure.

Your way of describing arguments used by others seem to need to include put-downs and a condescending tone, this does not add credibility to what you say, even if you think so, on the contrary it probably puts people on the defensive... and thus weakens your chance of getting your point across.
Being a bully does not make you right. It only means you need to work on your way of relating to others.

Lord Inquisitor, obviously you know how to express yourself and it is a shame that you do not practice patience with others, or focus on making arguments, because the reason we even discuss this to begin with is that we actually want to hear the arguments for and against. Me personally, is still on the fence, and I do not necessary argue that it is one way or an other. Rather I am looking for clarity. You did contribute your opinion, and for that I thank you, but the way you come across when discussing a trivial issue is sad, and discourages others from posting. Who knows, if Lord Inquisitor doesn't agree... - ENTER THE FORUM BULLY! dada! Time to run and hide.
Aloha, Lord Khrell

Lord Inquisitor
12-10-2010, 20:59
In this case in the paragraph above you ask me to ignore that it specifically states under the heading "chariot mounts" that a character in a chariot is considered troop type "chariot" and that he specifically follows ALL rules for "chariots" and "characters"...
Yes, it follows all the rules for chariots and characters. I agree. All the rules for chariots and characters are used. And it also uses the rules for ridden monsters. These are not mutually exclusive. The character is a rider for the chariot, the unit uses all the rules for chariots AND all the rules for ridden monsters. Just as a ridden monster uses all the rules for monsters.


Your interpetation is only constent with the section under "ridden monster" and thus ignores "chariot". So according to you, a character in a chariot is then, troop type "monster" and now follows all rules for "monster" and "character" because that is what the "ridden monster" section states.
However, you might want to look at what the section above "Chariot Mount" states. And feel free to ignore it at your own leisure.
What? This makes no sense to me. It's clearly a unit type "chariot" because it says it is, and that's the exception to the ridden monster rules. You're going around in circles. There is NO rule in the chariot rules that actually states that a character's toughness/wounds is not used. It states that you do not use the "crew's," but the crew and the character are different things. Look at a Chaos Chariot for an example. It has a "crew" (Two Chaos Warriors). It can also be ridden by a character who can be "given a Chariot as a mount." The chariot has a crew (the chaos warrior) and a character who uses the chariot as a mount. The rules for chariots apply to the chariot model that is defined as three sets of characteristics ("one for the beasts, one for the crew and one for the chariot itself").

Of course I accept that it is a unit type chariot. Of course it follows all the rules for chariots. That doesn't make the character part of the "crew." It also doesn't mean that the rules for character riders cannot be added on top. Clearly it follows the rules for chariots AND ridden monsters, as specified in the rule.

You have also ignored my every point. What's the clause about the monster reaction test for? Why does it say to use all the ridden monster rules when you contend that it uses NONE of the ridden monster rules?

Shas'O Vash
12-10-2010, 21:13
Wow. Most of you people don't know how to argue correctly. You can't just state and restate your conclusions over and over again with little to no justifications for them other than, "how can you not agree with me!"

By the way, page 96 is the start of the Character’s Section. The Riding High box out really doesn’t tell us much except for some fluff regarding the benefits and determents of mounting a character. No, let’s get into it…


Nothing says he becomes a crew. It's not an assumption to not add words where there isn't. He's a rider, not crew. Riders on chariots aren't given any benefits as you describe. Better fill in the rules for riders from ridden monsters.

Ok, where did this "riders" on chariots thing come from? The argument has always been whether or not he counts as "crew". I've stated my logical arguments about this multiple times; I've yet to hear a single argument about why he's not a crewman other than it doesn't explicitly state he is. You know, it doesn't explicitly state he isn't either but I have actually been arguing this point without constantly referring back to this.

Ok, now enter Lord Inquisitor…


"If a character has taken a chariot as a mount, the whole model is treated as having the troop type 'chariot' and follows all the rules for both characters and chariot models. Characters riding on chariots cannot join other units."

This is pretty much IDENTICAL to the text for ridden monsters, with the exception that "chariot" is replaced with "ridden monster".

"If a character has a ridden monster, the whole model is treated as having the troop type monster and thus follows all the rules for both characters and monster models. Characters on a ridden monster cannot join other units."

What ho? An actual argument! Hooray! But in all seriousness, I was looking mainly at the wording for chariots, cavalry, and monstrous cavalry and not really looking at this passage. You are correct, sir, in arguing that the wording is near identical to the wording for other mount types. Since nowhere does it even remotely suggest that a character and ridden monster are a combined profile, (meaning they are separate) and since no one (I hope) is willing to suggest that this allows the character to Thunder Stomp (as he follows the rules for Monsters) this poses serious problems for interpreting the chariot passage as literally as I have in past posts.


[...] how about the clause "A chariot mount otherwise follows all the rules for ridden monsters" ... if it's a split profile unit, how many of the monsters rules would actually apply?

- character and his ridden monster can be attacked separately (no)
- the character may find himself unhorsed (no)
- ridden monsters and armour saves (no)
- shooting at ridden monsters (no)
- templates (no)
- monster mounts in combat (no)
- slain riders or mounts (no)

So what you're saying is that when it says "a chariot mount otherwise follows all the rules for ridden monsters" it actually means "a chariot mount otherwise follows NONE of the rules for ridden monsters". Yeah, that's clearly the intent of the rule. :rolleyes:

This is another really good argument that I have no rebuttal against, and it’s one that I’m inclined to agree with.

And onto Lord Krell...


Under the section on "Ridden Monsters" it outlines that characters riding a monster it doesn't not use the rules for cavalry or monsterous cavalry...
If a character rides a monster the whole model is treated as having the troop type "monster" and thus follows all the rules for both characters and monster models.
In this case in the paragraph above you ask me to ignore that it specifically states under the heading "chariot mounts" that a character in a chariot is considered troop type "chariot" and that he specifically follows ALL rules for "chariots" and "characters".

Interesting point. The only counter argument to this that I can come up with is that the first section directly under the big bold “Ridden Monster” heading is basically describing how to treat Ridden Monsters; in a similar way to the two paragraphs under the big bold “Chariot Mount” heading. The “…follows all the rules for ridden monsters” phrase in the Chariot Mount section may just be referring to the rules starting with the heading, “Ridden Monsters and Special Rules”.

Finally, the Nurge...


Remember in Jurassic Park when they had to use frog DNA to fill gaps in the dino DNA sequence? Otherwise they'd have been making retarded dinosaurs. Well, in this metaphor the Dino DNA is the rule set and the frog DNA is common sense. Let's just hope it doesn't backfire and kill us all like in the movie... :D

While not really an argument one way or the other, I do appreciate a good metaphor. Forgive me if I use it to segment my way into a new conclusion. As Lord Inquisitor has demonstrated that my past interpretations of the “Characters riding a chariots follows the rules for Chariots” shouldn’t be taken so [damn] literally, and the fact that I cannot find an argument against why it would include the phrase, “… otherwise follows the rules for Ridden Monsters […]” when a literal interpretation makes all the sub sections in this rule pointless, I’m forced to agree with the general consensus that the BRB’s RAW (independent of the FAQs) do indeed support the viewpoint that characters and their chariots are treated separately.

As all but one of the FAQ entries mentioned in this thread also support this I’m inclined to say that the majority of the FAQ’s RAW also support this conclusion. The only exception is the FAQ:

“Q: Does a character have a troop type? If yes, do all of the rules that apply to that troop type apply to the character? And will the character be affected by special attacks or spells that affect that troop
type? (p96) A: Yes to all questions.”

Since, as I stated above, I’m unwilling to step out on the limb that says a character riding a dragon gains the Thunder Stomp special rule, I have to leave this FAQ in the category that GW F’ed up again. If you’re willing to ignore this one FAQ, all the world is right as rain again. Reading this rule as RAW leads down paths to terrible and silly to contemplate…

Lord Krell
12-10-2010, 21:14
You have also ignored my every point. What's the clause about the monster reaction test for? Why does it say to use all the ridden monster rules when you contend that it uses NONE of the ridden monster rules?

Far from ignored your every point, in fact I agree with many of the things you bring up. Just that I do not necessary consider your arguments conclusive, especially when looking at what Shas'O Vas brought up in his replies.

In the DoC the chariot doesn't come with a "crew" per say, and then who is actually crewing the chariot? The Juggernaught? or is the Chariot under its own control? Like some type of daemon engine?

And thank you for changing your attitude, Lord Inquisitor. Much better.

Aloha, Lord Khrell

Lord Inquisitor
12-10-2010, 21:29
What ho? An actual argument! Hooray! But in all seriousness, I was looking mainly at the wording for chariots, cavalry, and monstrous cavalry and not really looking at this passage. You are correct, sir, in arguing that the wording is near identical to the wording for other mount types. Since nowhere does it even remotely suggest that a character and ridden monster are a combined profile, (meaning they are separate) and since no one (I hope) is willing to suggest that this allows the character to Thunder Stomp (as he follows the rules for Monsters) this poses serious problems for interpreting the chariot passage as literally as I have in past posts.
Heh, thanks for your most reasonable response.

As a concession on my part, I just realised there is EXACTLY NO DIFFERENCE between how cavalry, monstrous cavalry, chariots and ridden monsters are defined because I started reading at chariots. Clearly cavalry and monstrous cavalry turn the character into a split profile unit (and monstrous cavalry CAN increase a character's wounds, something that I learnt to my dismay at a recent tournament when a Skaven general on bonebreaker escaped death by virtue of the bonebreaker's extra wound, costing me the tournament). The cavalry simply states that it "follows all the rules for both characters and cavalry models" and the only real defence against this is a) a fine distinction between "crew" not including the character and "rider" being the character (one that I'd rather not pursue), and the obvious intent that chariots be intended as ridden monsters.


In the DoC the chariot doesn't come with a "crew" per say, and then who is actually crewing the chariot? The Juggernaught? or is the Chariot under its own control? Like some type of daemon engine?
I presume it is simply a chariot without a crew. In rules terms it's immaterial as the Juggernaught has the profile characteristics (notably Ld) that would be used if the Character died. Note that the character+chariot still count as a single model, so characteristic tests would be taken on the highest value.


And thank you for changing your attitude, Lord Inquisitor. Much better.
My intent was not to insult. It just struck me as an easter egg hunt and these have been very common around here recently. If the discussion was based on a geniune rules question (and I hadn't realised the similarity in wording with cav/monstrous cav, as I mentioned above) then I apologise for the assumption. I do feel, however, that the intent of the rules is very clearly laid out in the rules as it stands and I personally feel that slavishly literal reading of the rules is often not the way the rules should be played.

Shas'O Vash
12-10-2010, 21:31
...Although the idea of a Skink Priest riding a Stegadon trying to stop around on top of Chaos Warriors like Calvin [and Hobbes] on top of snowmen is a funny mental image, I'm not going there...

Eltharil
12-10-2010, 21:37
Wow. Most of you people don't know how to argue correctly...

Your argumentation is well constructed but maybe not relevant.

P104, first line 'a lot of characters are riding a mount'
P104 second paragraph lists mounts of 4 types: cavalery, monstruous cavalery, chariot and monsters. All those can be ride by a character.

If a character rides a chariot, it's a rider.
As a rider, following the riden monster rules, it's profile isn't combined with the chariot. That's why u can target him in a challenge and that's why there's a rule telling us chariot doesn't get reacting test at rider's death.

Eltharil
12-10-2010, 21:45
Your argumentation is well constructed but maybe not relevant.

P104, first line 'a lot of characters are riding a mount'
P104 second paragraph lists mounts of 4 types: cavalery, monstruous cavalery, chariot and monsters. All those can be ride by a character.

If a character rides a chariot, it's a rider.
As a rider, following the riden monster rules, it's profile isn't combined with the chariot. That's why u can target him in a challenge and that's why there's a rule telling us chariot doesn't get reacting test at rider's death.

and one more point, p86 first paragraph says a chariot his composed of beast pulling it, crewmen and the machine itself. A chariot is all of these components.
So, if a character can rides a chariot as stated at p104, the character rides the beast pulling it, the machine itself and...the crewmen.

If as u say, the character is a crewman, then the character is riding himself!:cheese:

Shas'O Vash
12-10-2010, 21:48
and one more point, p86 first paragraph says a chariot his composed of beast pulling it, crewmen and the machine itself. A chariot is all of these components.
So, if a character can rides a chariot as stated at p104, the character rides the beast pulling it, the machine itself and...the crewmen.

If as u say, the character is a crewman, then the character is riding himself!:cheese:

OK, I think we've reach somewhat of a conclusion here regarding how this rule is to be interpreted so arguing over rider vs. crew is something of a moot point. However, this did make me laugh out loud!

Lord Krell
12-10-2010, 21:50
So in conclusion:
The character is separate from the "chariot" and even though crew, beasts, and chariot follows the "chariot" rules, the rider does not, he follows the rules under "ridden monster." And thus can be targetted seperately in melee, and randomly in shooting (unless sniped).
In case of attacking a chariot without crew or character, you use the WS of the beasts? Or do you hit automatically?
Aloha Lord Khrell

Eltharil
12-10-2010, 22:04
So in conclusion:
The character is separate from the "chariot" and even though crew, beasts, and chariot follows the "chariot" rules, the rider does not, he follows the rules under "ridden monster." And thus can be targetted seperately in melee, and randomly in shooting (unless sniped).
In case of attacking a chariot without crew or character, you use the WS of the beasts? Or do you hit automatically?
Aloha Lord Khrell

Crewmen WS is used as stated p86... so automatically hit if no crew (exception if those chariots got a special rule in their army book)

Eltharil
12-10-2010, 22:06
OK, I think we've reach somewhat of a conclusion here regarding how this rule is to be interpreted so arguing over rider vs. crew is something of a moot point. However, this did make me laugh out loud!

Cheesy rules makes cheesy post. Only a cheesy joke can save our brain.
Cheese rules the world!:cheese::cheese::cheese:

decker_cky
12-10-2010, 22:06
Agreed. Automatically fail any leadership tests they're forced to take too since the beasts' leadership is never used.

Lord Inquisitor
12-10-2010, 22:09
Hmm. Actually, that's a good question. For chariots without crew, I presume you can then use the beast's WS and Ld values... but I can't find anything to say as much. I thought there was an FAQ about this (the war altar?) but I can't find anything about it now.

Lord Krell
12-10-2010, 22:35
So...

Crewmen WS is used as stated p86... so automatically hit if no crew (exception if those chariots got a special rule in their army book)

It is indeed the WS of the crew that is used when trying to strike the chariot, so for all reasons, a daemon chariot is always hit automatically in close combat ...since there never are any crew on it. Not even when there is a character on it.
Sounds about right?

And always always failing a LD test when taking instability tests... means in concrete terms failing by how much? Since always fail, means you will not even roll.

decker_cky
12-10-2010, 22:38
I'd consider them both to have Ld0 for instability/spirit leach/stupidity/anything else they need.

Shas'O Vash
12-10-2010, 22:44
I'd consider them both to have Ld0 for instability/spirit leach/stupidity/anything else they need.

I'd have to agree with this as the Skaven FAQ lists the Bell and Furnace as Ld0, so there is a precedence. Unless we want to resume argument on whether a character is part of the crew. If this is the case a new thread should probably be started as this is not the original purpose of this thread.

Lord Inquisitor
12-10-2010, 22:44
It is indeed the WS of the crew that is used when trying to strike the chariot, so for all reasons, a daemon chariot is always hit automatically in close combat ...since there never are any crew on it. Not even when there is a character on it.
Sounds about right?
I... uh... ah... hmm...

No, it sounds entirely wrong. I'm having trouble building a concrete argument against it, and I think I'll quit while I'm ahead here... :p

Lord Krell
12-10-2010, 22:52
I'd consider them both to have Ld0 for instability/spirit leach/stupidity/anything else they need.

In all honesty, you really think a daemon chariot always (even with a character on it) it automatically hit, with a LD of 0.
As referring to Lord Inquisitor's way of looking at rules, this goes against common sense, and reading the rules too literally and all that...

Surely GW did not intend that an Herald on a Chariot would allow the chariot to be automatically hit in CC, and have LD 0.

And OH NO, Lord Inquisitor you are going NOWHERE! lol Since this may suggest that the Herald is actually the crew...

Aloha Lord Khrell

Shas'O Vash
12-10-2010, 23:10
In all honesty, you really think a daemon chariot always (even with a character on it) it automatically hit, with a LD of 0.
As referring to Lord Inquisitor's way of looking at rules, this goes against common sense, and reading the rules too literally and all that...

Surely GW did not intend that an Herald on a Chariot would allow the chariot to be automatically hit in CC, and have LD 0.

And OH NO, Lord Inquisitor you are going NOWHERE! lol Since this may suggest that the Herald is actually the crew...

Aloha Lord Khrell

Unfortunately, I try not to argue positions based off of RAI; I've mentioned my stance on RAI in this thread a few times. The RAW that I'm aware of are pretty clear on the matter that the beast's WS and Ld are not used. And I think we are agreeing, for the time being, that we're not going to touch the issue of characters being part of the crew.

Lord Inquisitor
12-10-2010, 23:22
The rules are, however, written on the assumption that there is a crew. Given that chariots without crew are certainly possible (war altars or daemonic chariots once their characters die - assuming we're all agreed on this!) then the rules become somewhat obviously lacking.

I mean, the full rule here is: "we assume the crew to be in complete control of the beasts that pull the chariot, so the beast's Leadership is never used."

Well, we can't assume that the crew to be in complete control of the beasts if there is no crew, so does this rule apply when there is no crew?

In terms of RAI (yeah, sorry), comparing chariots with crew (chaos chariot, elf chariots, cold one chariot, black coach, beast chariot, scraplauncher) these all have Ld "-" for their beasts against those that are pure character mounts without crew (daemon chariots, war altar) have a Ld value for the beast, it suggests strongly that the Ld value of the beast is listed for those chariots without a "crew" as it counts as the Ld value for the chariot. And these values are from the summary in the rulebook.

Lord Krell
12-10-2010, 23:25
One of the arguments made was there it did not state that the character counts as crew, but in this case it makes no sense that an empty chariot given to a character did not intend the character to crew it, and if looked at (as Lord Inquisitor suggested) in a way that would allow the rules to work as intended (where the chariot is not automatically hit by default), then the Herald is indeed the crew of the daemon chariot.

A theory is only a theory until it cannot explain something.

I humbly suggest that we conclude this here and now, and not dismiss it out of convenience, because maybe indeed your original arguments make sense.

In this case, with daemonic chariots, the character and the chariot is indeed 1 model, and fights and dies as 1 model.

The argument, "it is simply a chariot without crew" just does not make sense.

Aloha, Lord Khrell

Lord Krell
12-10-2010, 23:29
Seeing your reply Lord Inquisitor, for the time being, one way of looking at it, would be to indeed use the LD and the WS of the beasts, just to allow the item to play, and going with the least modification of the rules. To avoid making the character the crew.

Aloha, Lord Khrell

AMWOOD co
12-10-2010, 23:32
Well, until ruled otherwise, I'll treat chariots without crew (War Alters, Daemon chariots, and Tomb King chariots that have each had their characters killed) as having the beasts acting as crew in terms of the rules. This saves hassles like "What is the Ld of the chariot?" Note that this is a house rule based on previous editions and is not following strict RAW, but it saves hassles. (Auto hits from the flanks and rear might be fun, though, but I likely won't do it, too many handicaps for players who aren't me).

Chris_
12-10-2010, 23:46
Wow... Lots of posts all of a sudden. Anyway, just want to point out that in some cases the Chariot T, W and so on are not always a boost for the character. (Tomb King as an example :p )

Shas'O Vash
13-10-2010, 00:10
<sigh> OK, let's do this thing! :evilgrin:

So I guess there are two questions here:

1) Does a character on a chariot count as it's crew?
2) In the absence of crew, do the chariot's 'beasts' fend for themselves?

Here's my two cents:

1) Now that we've agreed that chariots and characters are two different components we can consider this FAQ in a new light, "Q: Can a model in a challenge direct his attacks against an enemy character’s chariot or monstrous mount? (p102) A: Yes." This FAQ quote clearly intends the chariot to be a different target from the character. If it is indeed a different target, how can the chariot use the character's WS to defend itself? So clearly the character is not a member of the crew. (I'm not reneging. This position was Begging the Question before; it's been settled now.)

2) By RAW, no. Although I'd only enforce this interpretation at 'Ard Boyz were the goal is to be a dick anyways. During a friendly game I would certainly allow it. An FAQ would be nice though.

Lord Inquisitor
13-10-2010, 00:12
Although I'd only enforce this interpretation at 'Ard Boyz were the goal is to be a dick anyways.
It really isn't the goal. I've had a lot of fun and some great opponents at the Ard Boyz, please don't perpetuate the myth that these tournaments are only for dicks.

Chris_
13-10-2010, 00:19
It really isn't the goal. I've had a lot of fun and some great opponents at the Ard Boyz, please don't perpetuate the myth that these tournaments are only for dicks.There are girls there too? :shifty: :D

Lord Inquisitor
13-10-2010, 00:23
Wall-to-wall hotties at the semis, man, I'm telling you. I can only dream of what the finals would be like. :cool:

Dark_Mage99
13-10-2010, 00:25
I don't know if this has been resolved or not yet, but to me there is no argument: the character does not use the chariots stats.

Let's not all get needlessly picky about this.

A chariot follows all the rules for ridden monsters, except the monster reaction test. Ridden monsters and their riders can be attacked seperately.

Shas'O Vash
13-10-2010, 00:32
I don't know if this has been resolved or not yet, but to me there is no argument: the character does not use the chariots stats.

Let's not all get needlessly picky about this.

A chariot follows all the rules for ridden monsters, except the monster reaction test. Ridden monsters and their riders can be attacked seperately.

That was settled last page when it was postulated that a Skink Priest gets Thunder Stomp when riding a Stegadon by the one side of the pure RAW interpretation of the rules; no one was willing to support that interpretation after that.

Shas'O Vash
13-10-2010, 00:34
Wall-to-wall hotties at the semis, man, I'm telling you. I can only dream of what the finals would be like. :cool:

Damn! I knew I should have gone to a location outside of the mid-west for the semi-finals!!!

geldedgoat
13-10-2010, 05:19
In this case, with daemonic chariots, the character and the chariot is indeed 1 model, and fights and dies as 1 model.

The argument, "it is simply a chariot without crew" just does not make sense.

I'm afraid that, again, you're overcomplicating the issue. The simplest explanation that breaks absolutely no rules and leaves no dangling inconsistencies is that, absent any crew, the beast(s) acts as both beast and crew.

So, to answer the questions:
The leadership of the beast is used unless joined by a character.
The WS of the beast is used when attacked from the front.
The chariot is auto-hit when attacked from the side or rear.

the Nurge
13-10-2010, 12:51
I'm afraid that, again, you're overcomplicating the issue. The simplest explanation that breaks absolutely no rules and leaves no dangling inconsistencies is that, absent any crew, the beast(s) acts as both beast and crew.


I agree with this. It also stands to reason that a chaos chariot could very well drive itself if it needed to, what with the demons and evil magic and stuff. :)