PDA

View Full Version : Can a Skaven Warlord on a Warlitter be stomped?



Kevlar
02-12-2010, 01:44
Its troop type is infantry, but he is mounted and gets a cavalry save?

theunwantedbeing
02-12-2010, 01:49
If he's infantry he can be stomped, which he is, so can be stomped it seems.

AMWOOD co
02-12-2010, 01:56
Being mounted on Infantry... um...okay...? Does the Skaven book say he counts as Infantry still? If not, do you count him as Infantry (ie. houserule for mounted on Infantry)? If he counts as Infantry, he can be stomped. If he counts as Cavalry, he cannot.

Strict reading of pp 104 and 105 leads to the Cavalry conclusion but Epidemius (who's mounted on a Palanquin) says otherwise. The loose rules interpretation or the Special Character example? Nasty toss up, ain't it?

ZigZagMan
02-12-2010, 17:23
The Beastiary in the BRB says infantry for the warlitter, i assume thats what hes going by. Correctly as far as I know

Pacorko
02-12-2010, 17:39
To some it might seem stupid to read or implement in a game, but yes. That's what all the pertinent rules say. It's infantry.

belgarath97
02-12-2010, 18:01
The rules for cavalry mounts, under character mounts, say if you are mounted on something with one wound, you are on a cav mount and thus cavalry. So no stomp. an no look out sir.

stripsteak
02-12-2010, 18:26
The rules for cavalry mounts, under character mounts, say if you are mounted on something with one wound, you are on a cav mount and thus cavalry. So no stomp. an no look out sir.

the warlitter doesn't have 1 wound, it has - wounds

theunwantedbeing
02-12-2010, 18:29
He get's a 2+ look out sir roll, as opposed to none at all, due to being infantry.
Being stompable is a small price to pay.

Same deal with the Chaos Palanquinn.

Blkc57
02-12-2010, 20:42
He get's a 2+ look out sir roll, as opposed to none at all, due to being infantry.
Being stompable is a small price to pay.

Same deal with the Chaos Palanquinn.

Actually the warlitter rules itself in the Skaven Army Book grant the warlord a look out sir roll. I classify him as being infantry for all purposes, but hey if people want to classify him as calvary I'll go along with it, seeing as how he still gets a LoS from the Warlitter's rules descriptions and it makes him unstompable. ;)

Malorian
02-12-2010, 20:44
The Beastiary in the BRB says infantry for the warlitter

This is all that matters.

Blkc57
02-12-2010, 20:49
Thats pretty much how everyone I've ever seen has classed the Warlitter...infantry. Again I'm baffled as to why anyone would ever want to classify the thing as cav. Make him take a dangerous terrain check? All I can really think of.

AMWOOD co
02-12-2010, 21:20
Thats pretty much how everyone I've ever seen has classed the Warlitter...infantry. Again I'm baffled as to why anyone would ever want to classify the thing as cav. Make him take a dangerous terrain check? All I can really think of.

The reason to prefer cavalry as a type is based on strict interpretation of the Rulebook, what many often call Ruleslawyering. It isn't wrong, but that interpretation doesn't seem to be the intention from the examples we have (eg. Epidemius)

Kevlar
02-12-2010, 22:15
The warlord is clearly not on foot. He actually has a much more substantial "mount" under him than a horse. I was thinking more about the ruling for the Slann no longer being allowed to use the magic carpet or the transformation spell. He isn't cavarly in the BRB, still gets a look out sir, but he is obviously mounted on something. The section you buy the warlitter from is even clearly labelled "Skaven Mounts".

Malorian
02-12-2010, 22:40
The warlord is clearly not on foot. He actually has a much more substantial "mount" under him than a horse. I was thinking more about the ruling for the Slann no longer being allowed to use the magic carpet or the transformation spell. He isn't cavarly in the BRB, still gets a look out sir, but he is obviously mounted on something. The section you buy the warlitter from is even clearly labelled "Skaven Mounts".

And all that means nothing since he's clearly defined as infantry.


This is basically the counter argument of this thread:

-Milk comes in a carton
-Eggs can also come from a carton
-Eggs go well with bacon
-Therefore that is bacon in your carton, even though it says milk

:wtf:

Pacorko
02-12-2010, 22:41
The rules for cavalry mounts, under character mounts, say if you are mounted on something with one wound, you are on a cav mount and thus cavalry. So no stomp. an no look out sir.

Wrong on all accounts regarding the mighty (yet stompable) Warlitter.

H33D
03-12-2010, 08:51
There are actually a few instances of Infantry models that are not 'on foot'. Dwarf Lords on shieldbearers are still Infantry, for example. Although he is standing up....

venomx51
03-12-2010, 09:04
There are actually a few instances of Infantry models that are not 'on foot'. Dwarf Lords on shieldbearers are still Infantry, for example. Although he is standing up....

The Slann being another one, flaoting as he does on his big floating disc of fun... Just because you're not on your own feet doesn't instantly make you cavalry. Just go by the units description in the BRB. It's what it's there for.

hamsterwheel
03-12-2010, 16:30
I'm more interested in the fact that the Warlitter has a "-" for Wounds.

Page 3 of the Rulebook
"Some creatures have been given a value of '0'(often show as a dash: '-'_ for certain characteristics, which means that they have no ability whatsoever in that skill."

"If at any time a model's Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0 or less by magic or a special rule, it is slain and removed from play."

I'll have to pull out my Skaven book when I get home.

Ghal Maraz
03-12-2010, 16:37
I'm more interested in the fact that the Warlitter has a "-" for Wounds.

Page 3 of the Rulebook
"Some creatures have been given a value of '0'(often show as a dash: '-'_ for certain characteristics, which means that they have no ability whatsoever in that skill."

"If at any time a model's Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0 or less by magic or a special rule, it is slain and removed from play."

I'll have to pull out my Skaven book when I get home.

Where would the problem be, in this case? The model is not "reduced to 0" W as per the rulebook ruling of this case, the model simply starts with this value, so not even ruleslawyering here, I would dare say.

Ironmonger
03-12-2010, 23:48
I don't see the problem. If you ignore the rulebook and just go off of what the 'model' 'should' look like, then no, he can't be stomped. If you play by 'the rules,' then yes, he can be.

von HaŁtenmeister
04-12-2010, 07:15
And an infantry character mounted on infantry is clearly infantry. :)

Theo

The guy that said this might have been joking, but that doesn't mean he wasn't right.

Chris_
04-12-2010, 11:54
Warlord on war-litter is of type Infantry. The "mounted on a one wound thing = cavalry" doesn't work because the war-litter has no wounds. And I see no problem with part of a model having (-) for wounds or similar to start with. No one is going to argue that war machines are dead from the start because they have S -, right?

Oh, and as for the question, since he is infantry you may stomp him.

stashman
05-12-2010, 16:39
Put the skaven lord in a chariot and you are safe from stomps (a joke!!!)


One cool thing should be that a Bonebreaker could be used as a "free" beast like Boneripper, running around with in 12" of the skaven lord.

Gromdal
07-12-2010, 08:49
Good to see that so many finally how come to their senses and now see infantry as infantry.

Do a search and see how I schooled many about it when it came to the dwarf lord and shieldbearers.

A soldier on foot mounted on siegetower is infantry.

A soldier on foot carrying another soldier (that is lazy or wounded), both are still infantry etc etc.

Its not that hard, all that is needed is some basic knowledge.

Pacorko
07-12-2010, 16:06
Do a search and see how I schooled many about it when it came to the dwarf lord and shieldbearers.

Narcissist, much? :rolleyes:

This adds nothing to the thread and while you are right in terms of correct Historical labelling, you sound petulant with that opener.

What you (and many of us) know about real life warfare doesn't apply to the crazy world of game rules and that's especially true for Warhammer which was never intended to be a simulation, but a game. Thus, some awkward or plain stupid situations have arisen throughout the years.

Yet, your "schooling" was hardly needed. It's quite spelled out quite clearly on the rules.

Lord_Elric
07-12-2010, 21:46
The rules for cavalry mounts, under character mounts, say if you are mounted on something with one wound, you are on a cav mount and thus cavalry. So no stomp. an no look out sir.

Id like to direct you to the VERY FIRST line in the cavalry rules on page 82
aka "the term cavalry refers to roughly man sized soldiers mounted on warbeasts" so um yeh nuf said...


I'm more interested in the fact that the Warlitter has a "-" for Wounds.

Page 3 of the Rulebook
"Some creatures have been given a value of '0'(often show as a dash: '-'_ for certain characteristics, which means that they have no ability whatsoever in that skill."

"If at any time a model's Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0 or less by magic or a special rule, it is slain and removed from play."

I'll have to pull out my Skaven book when I get home.



however basic cavalry rules state that the mounts wounds are Never used...even if you was riding a warbeast (not monsterous beast) that happened to have 2 wounds it still wouldnt be used

Masque
07-12-2010, 22:00
I'm going to muddy the waters here a bit. First of all, let me say that I think a Warlord on Warlitter should and does count as infantry.

The fact that the Warlitter itself is listed as infantry does not necessarily make the combined model infantry. As a counter example, the Great Pox Rat is a war beast but when someone is riding it (always) then the combined model is cavalry.

On page 104 the rules tell us that if a character is riding something with one wound then the model is cavalry. Page 82 hints that a multi-wound war beast ridden by a character (which doesn't exist) would also count as cavalry. The rules also tell us that if a character rides a monstrous beast it counts as monstrous cavalry. We can only assume this supercedes the cavalry rule in the the case of things like Warriors riding Juggernauts. Finally, the rules tell us a character riding a monster or chariot counts as a monster or chariot respectively. Though we are never told this we can assume that when an infantry model rides something that causes the combined model to be of another type that he ceases to be infantry. The rules do not say what happens when a character rides something unique. By the strictest RAW interpretation such a character would still count as infantry but that is clearly incorrect. The rules are also silent on what happens when a character rides an infantry mount. We can only assume that infantry plus infantry equals infantry.

Lord_Elric
08-12-2010, 01:23
cavalry = infantry riding warbeast
monsteruos cav = infantry riding monsterous beast
chariot = infantry riding chariot
ridden monster = infantry riding monster

these are the only situations where an infantry model on a mount changes its unit type therefore as these are the only specified cases any other combination would not changes the models basic unit type therefore the character is infantry buying an infantry mount for him would not alter his unit type from infantry...

as refernce to the section on pg104 im guessing there is a reason for the warlitter NOT having a wounds characteristic

H33D
08-12-2010, 06:40
Well, if you are riding anything you are absolutely NOT infantry. You do not RIDE a war litter and you do not RIDE a palanquin and you do not RIDE a shield. An infantry in actual terms is a person who fights on foot. Should you be standing on something that doesn't really adjust your height or speed or any other factor that mounts and vehicles have a large impact on, you are really still infantry. It is really more about the style of fighting than anything. This is just my opinion, however.

belgarath97
08-12-2010, 14:35
To some it might seem stupid to read or implement in a game, but yes. That's what all the pertinent rules say. It's infantry.

I'm actually reversing my previous position, but no all the relevent rules don't say that. In fact the only pertinent rule says the opposite. The rule for cavarly mounts under characters says the key feature of a cavalry mount is that it has one wound. If a character is mounted on anything with one wound, the character follows all the rules for cavalry.

Anything else is conjecture and interpretation based on Epidimus' classification as infantry in the Bestiary.

I personally can justify both rulings, so I'm erring on the side that is more restrictive, thus ruling him as cavalry. So no protection from a unit (look out sir!), but it does make him immune to stomp.

antihelten
08-12-2010, 15:02
Anything else is conjecture and interpretation based on Epidimus' classification as infantry in the Bestiary.


Which is arguably on quite thin ice, considering there are other special characters that don't follow the general mount rules, for instance Archaon and Tyrion.

Also compare the listed troop type of the fay enchantress and silvaron with that of morathi and sulephet, and it should be clear how inconsistent GW is with writing the troop types of special characters.

Pacorko
08-12-2010, 17:09
I'm actually reversing my previous position, but no all the relevent rules don't say that. In fact the only pertinent rule says the opposite. The rule for cavarly mounts under characters says the key feature of a cavalry mount is that it has one wound. If a character is mounted on anything with one wound, the character follows all the rules for cavalry.

Buuuut... the War litter has none, soooo.... yep. You can justify all you want, it's still RAI.


So no protection from a unit (look out sir!), but it does make him immune to stomp.

Wasn't it mentioned that a) yes, it does and B) no, it doesn't? Mainly because you initial argument to counter it [mounted on anything with one wound] is... well, flawed regarding the War Litter?

It's classed as INFANTRY, just let it go and get over it. There's really no need to go WYSIWYG on the model or RAIing just to keep on a rather pointless discussion. Until such a time when another FAQ update pops up and clearly comes with a revision that puts the War Litter on the cavalry Category... the bloody thing is infantry: an infantry-borne infantry-character.

Lets' just put it here for the overall silliness of the argument's sake: I am on a Segway, I charge a car... I am on my comfy exec chair at my home office, I charge my wife's family...

The fact I'm mounted [standing and sitting, respectively] on wheeled thingies with metal parts, doesn't make me armoured cav.

Just a nutter charging cars and man-things. :D

Haravikk
10-12-2010, 12:50
Stomp isn't necessarily just crushing things underfoot, it's the monstrous creature using it's bulk to push forward, it could just as easily kick one of the bearers in the danglies and potentially dump the warlord unceremoniously on his face as a result :)

Lord_Elric
10-12-2010, 17:35
yeh stomp i more the accidental hits caused by the creatures bulk as it pushes and swings