PDA

View Full Version : The watchtower scenario



scruffyryan
30-01-2011, 20:32
So, everyone seems to hate the watchtower scenario, however I'm kind of of the opinion that the random scenarios dovetail into a balancing factor for fantasy.

You have your vanilla line up and fight list, you've got some random deployment, you have a scenario that punishes people who dont take commands, you have a scenario that rewards people who take things like cavalry and heavily benefits gun armies if you don't have something fast to do, and you have watchtower, which tries to make people take smaller units, as if you win "possession" of the watchtower but don't have a unit to put in there you tend to spend the rest of the game trying to root their toughest unit out of it.

This causes some problems, but what would be a reasonable solution? I feel that taken as a whole a scenario that punishes people who only take huge units is kind of a necessary balancing factor.

After some thought I came to the conclusion that really, what it needs is to be a 'capture point' scenario with 3 capture points, one of which is a building and the person who holds 2 of 3 at the end of the scenario wins.

So as an example you may need to hold the river ford, the hill over looking the watchtower and the watchtower. If you hold the hill and the river ford, the people in the watchtower are cut off from reinforcement at the end of the game and you win, if you hold the hill and tower you have a clear line to punish enemies trying to ford the river and you win, river and tower and you have an easy time reinforcing your troops in the tower and bingo, win the game.

Thoughts? Does this solve most of the problems people have with the scenario?

Korraz
30-01-2011, 20:52
Interesting idea. Might work.

I played one or two games that were changed to "King of the Hill", meaning: The tower is simply replaced with a hill. It worked quite well, and the underdog lore Heaven suddenly became really interesting with the push and the comet.

RanaldLoec
30-01-2011, 21:17
Nice idea very simple and effective it by passes cheesey problems like the ethereal high elve mage. It also becomes a more balanced scenario, but that's only my opinion.

Haravikk
30-01-2011, 21:35
Sounds like a great variant to remove some of the worst situations. Would be especially interesting to see how that one would play out on 3-way games!
Also gives GW an excuse to sell more hills, and if they made one, a river set! Sounds like the perfect scenario to me :D

hashrat
30-01-2011, 22:34
I like the scenario.
I think it is because we drew our lists up before our campaign started and don't change them, no scenario specific list exists in our campaign.
Besides no plan survives contact with the enemy :D
Always fun imho.

Peegore
30-01-2011, 23:29
I believe Watchtower should be in there for reason mention by OP... game balance. Making sure army lists are balanced.

More to the point, I like that the OP is getting into, what I think, is the spirit of 8th. Enjoying the game, developing scenarios etc. Basically trying to make each game that bit more memorable. Playing for the story, not playing purely for the win.

The mindset of 7th ed and "pitch battle or nothing", as far as i'm concerned, is one best left behind.

Oh, and yes, I reckon me and my gaming buddies will have a go at that variation. It sounds interesting. Cheers for that!

Asensur
30-01-2011, 23:50
Using ramdon scenario is the way to go to prevent cheese armies.

It's not the same to make a list for one scenario like pitched battle, than to make a list for six possible scenarios. Special terrain gives more possibilities to this, as improving during the battle is a common thing during real-world campaigns.

I love watchtower. Is a mess for gunlines, and makes you decide either to control the building fast and hold the position or to wait for your opponent movements.

At the other side, multiple capture points can't work in Fantasy. They are more suitable in 40K, where you have more freedom in movement phase.

narrativium
30-01-2011, 23:57
The scenario does actually mention that the piece of terrain isn't required to be a building. It can be a hill, a wood, anything. It's just that the scenario is called "watchtower".

Still, it got everyone to know the rules for buildings...

Agoz
31-01-2011, 00:21
in my experience, the watchtower doesn't encourage anyone to take a small core unit, because the unit in the watchtower is not going to hold the thing for the entire game. And when it does get taken (usually by a much larger, stronger unit than a 20 man core) you'll only have a few turns left to destroy the new unit, which is much more difficult. If anything, having possession of the tower first turn is a major handicap, because either you don't put anything in there and lose the first turn, or you put something in there and it doesn't hold the tower.

w3rm
31-01-2011, 00:30
I love watchtower scenario. I just love the idea of a small garison holding off the enemy army while their freinds come to save thier asses!

Plus it screws over gunlines and forces aggressive play.

scruffyryan
31-01-2011, 00:36
in my experience, the watchtower doesn't encourage anyone to take a small core unit, because the unit in the watchtower is not going to hold the thing for the entire game. And when it does get taken (usually by a much larger, stronger unit than a 20 man core) you'll only have a few turns left to destroy the new unit, which is much more difficult. If anything, having possession of the tower first turn is a major handicap, because either you don't put anything in there and lose the first turn, or you put something in there and it doesn't hold the tower.

Here's what happens when people have no unit at all to place in the watchtower when fighting me. My temple guard and slaan occupy the building by my turn 2, and then he rains down death on their entire army, being functionally ENTIRELY untouchable Whereas no 10 models are going to kill all 20 of your core infantry in 1 turn, and since they're stubborn in a building as long as one survives you're testing on an unmodified generals leadership with a reroll. Then when your turn comes around again you start the movement phase by exiting the building on a flank with your unit, and entering it with your pipe hitting unit of doom.

Not having a unit to place when watchtower comes up and you're selected to put something in there feeds you a hefty disadvantage when your opponent gets to take occupancy first with the biggest baddest unit in his army.

Agoz
31-01-2011, 00:39
eventually that unit in the tower is still going down to something better, perhaps its not the first round of combat, but eventually, your block of temple guard and slann is getting in that tower, and then I have one or more less turns to get them out.

sulla
31-01-2011, 03:01
I love watchtower scenario. I just love the idea of a small garison holding off the enemy army while their freinds come to save thier asses!

.That sounds like a great scenario.

Not such a good scenario; A unit of dregs holding a tower from a furious assault for 5 minutes then mysteriously slipping out a window to be replaced by a 40-man deathstar with 4 characters... If the original garrison couldn't leave the building, it would play out as you describe and not reward the original garrison army for bringing a deathstar.

Ender Shadowkin
31-01-2011, 03:12
I like your scenario, we also enjoy the watchtower scenario as is, except we use the building destrocitoin rules in the scenarios section, that really helps ballance things as some armies are not good at holding things, but are good at knocking things down.

CaptScott
31-01-2011, 03:30
Played an eight game tourney last weekend using 8 different scenarios (including watchtower). Overall impression was that while it was fun, many didn't like the win-or-lose victory conditions, and would have preferred the watchtower to be worth VP's instead. So in summary:

For a social game - it's great
For tourneys - needs to be tweaked

SilasOfTheLambs
31-01-2011, 04:09
It mainly bothers me that somebody gets to start out with the watchtower. I think you should have to race for it.

scruffyryan
31-01-2011, 06:23
Its to balance out the fact that the person who goes first would otherwise simply get the watchtower anyway 90% of the time as their movement phases come earlier.

Trains_Get_Robbed
31-01-2011, 06:38
The Watchtower is my favorite scenario! :D

T.G and a Slann in a unit is piddle compared to my usual "towerstar" or Demons. . . :P

Lastly, whoever said that Fantasy can't use a mulitple objective set is not being very creative. XD My friends and I -like the O.P- have done such as having multiple objectives on the battlefield, just look at the Battle Royale if you think its not possible. Normally contention comes when the unit taking the objective is in combat, thus meaning the objective is contested.

I would have like to see the Dawn Attack scenario have the reserved units end up on a random board edge as opposed to coming up on your side, creates very wacky tactical involved game -my gaming groups have done this many of times.

I also would have liked to see a Capture the Flag scenario, rules would be quite easy -they should be if I spent many a hour refining them.

The more scenarios, the more varied and more fun the games.

Djekar
31-01-2011, 07:59
In my experience the Watchtower has been fairly balanced, but then we use the building destruction rules that aren't explicitly part of the scenario. Skaven have a problem with the building? Blow it up. Orcs have problems with the buildings? Shoot the thing down. The unit inside isn't auto-Steadfast while standing on the rubble so it seems to work out okay.

Havock
31-01-2011, 10:58
For a social game - it's great
For tourneys - needs to be tweaked

This summarises 8th ed entirely.

Another point of interest for tournaments: not having enough watchtowers for the whole thing. Also, the mechanics suck "if you fail to oust the opposition, you get bumped out of combat."
So I charge, you are auto-stubborn, likely pass Ld, my warriors get dumped outside ready to be shot at again and such? Great.

sssk
31-01-2011, 11:28
I'm afraid I haven't had time to read all of the responses, so sorry if this has been said before, but I think watchtower could be much more easily rectified by simply having it as a point instead of a building (where closest wins, and no one starts off with it).

I don't really have a problem with people taking huge units, and to be fair, if anything, watchtower just makes people take a single 20 man unit to stand in there until the other huge unit gets into the tower.

Personally I don't really like buildings in general. Having a little cottage populated by 100 goblins seems silly, and also means that I have my lovely painted unit, which has taken ages to finish, and ends up being represented by a goblin stood on a chimney.

That being said, it is good to have a game where you can freely throw units away as long as it distracts the opponent from the main objective. Makes sure you stay very focussed without getting distracted by the usual kill frenzy (and also scuppers gunlines a bit).

static grass
31-01-2011, 12:00
This summarises 8th ed entirely.

Another point of interest for tournaments: not having enough watchtowers for the whole thing. Also, the mechanics suck "if you fail to oust the opposition, you get bumped out of combat."
So I charge, you are auto-stubborn, likely pass Ld, my warriors get dumped outside ready to be shot at again and such? Great.


I have been musing over how to change the capture mechanism.

I think it is simplest to remove the auto stubborn and only count casualties from combat for morale check modifiers. Maybe give the defenders plus 1 to their morale for being in a building.

tmarichards
31-01-2011, 13:16
Problems with Watchtower are no different to problems from any other scenario:

1. You don't take a list that is balanced enough to be able to play the scenario. This will affect any game, and other scenarios like Blood and glory.

2. You play a bad match-up. In these instances, without some excellent tactical play, you can lose anyway even assuming fairly similar skill/experience levels.

If your opponent has a Deathstar, here's a wacky idea: don't let hi get in in the tower. He can only assault it in the movement phase, so you make sure your tower unit is as sturdy as possible. I take the flaming banner on my dark elf spears, just to try and maximise their casualties. You also make sure your BSB and general are in range so that survivors will have the greatest chance possible of passing their test. Because you can measure this and plan it out easily, if you're not doing it then you're putting yourself at a disadvantage.

So, assuming your enemy didn't kill the unit in the tower (there are not any units that will, think multi-attack elite infantry with boosts- 20 SM will likely not clear out 20 core infantry, however 20 black guard with an extra attack should do), then you simply throw your entire army in front of theirs and redirect them.

If you tie the enemy up correctly, your tower unit shouldn't get attacked more than once or twice in the whole game, and the second time is likely to be by some chaff that is being thrown against them in desperation.

Trains_Get_Robbed
31-01-2011, 14:34
^^^ Black Guard boosted would even be iffy, AHW, Frenized Warriors agasinst like Empire Spearmen or Peasants, then yes.

Colonel_kex
31-01-2011, 16:15
Empire players will have a good time with 5man redirecting free company fighters.
Just make sure the enemy can't charge the tower in their turn by popping the FCF in front of them

reddevil18
31-01-2011, 20:52
Why do people suggest taking the flaming banner against it?
I havnt seen anything in the rules about flaming attacks hitting units in buildings.

Korraz
31-01-2011, 21:03
Flaming Attacks allow to reroll To-Wound against units in buildings, PG69 IoB rulebook.

One thing that pulls the teeth from the tower is limiting the capacity to 5 per floor, to prevent ridiculously huge units from entering.

Okuto
31-01-2011, 21:23
I personally am confused why GW didnt just transfer some of the 40k missions to fantasy. The watchtower mission is a mixed bag for me.....like if I play Brets I automatically lose basically as the only infantry I have are crappy men at arms which I dont use so my cav army loses.....though my Empire, orcs and TK fare just fine.

Though I've only played a few games with 8th as of yet, I have some misgivings but overall it's a ok system until the army books catch up

w3rm
31-01-2011, 22:01
Cant you just trebuchet the tower and then stand on the rubble?

Ender Shadowkin
31-01-2011, 22:05
Cant you just trebuchet the tower and then stand on the rubble?

yep pretty easily actual, but the building destruction rulrmes are not in the main rule set, so some people do not use them.

Gazak Blacktoof
31-01-2011, 22:07
The conclusion we came to was that the occupation of the tower should provide a VP bonus instead of a straight win/lose condition. This (should) result in games where simply chucking your hardest unit in the tower means you now have to work extra hard to offset the points differential in mobile units. We thought it would force some hard choices and prevent the obvious silliness that goes on in the current scenario. We were also of the opinion that one player shouldn't be able to simply switch one unit out for another during the same movement phase, though this would be less of an issue with a VP bonus.

I'm not sure what the VP bonus would need to be but I think that it would probably be around 300-400 points for a 2000-2250 point game.

theorox
01-02-2011, 16:47
One thing that pulls the teeth from the tower is limiting the capacity to 5 per floor, to prevent ridiculously huge units from entering.

No such rule AFAIK. Only that 5 models per floor can shoot out of the tower, nothing about entering.

Theo

Tae
01-02-2011, 17:42
Yep, agree with most other reponses in as much as it's a nice idea just needs a tweek.

Case in point, my friend plays a mono-Tzeentch DoC army with a small unit of horrors (10) and one giant bus (51 + 2 heralds) and frankly you're pretty much guaranteed to lose if you lose the roll off to see who controls the building - the 10 man unit will go in, not die when you charge them (there's always one left who'll be stubborn with a re-roll thanks to the BSB being outside) and then next turn the remnants jump out and the bus goes in. And once the bus is in that's game in all honesty.

And even if you win the roll off you still need to be able to hold out against that much magic, but few armies can do. They rely on chopping the horrors up, which wont happen in this scenario.

I would have much preferred it if the capture point had been that - a point. Or a wood, or a relic or frankly just about anything that doesn't limit combat to purely kills and make any defenders stubborn - thus ensuring certain combos are if not actually then virtually impossible to shift from them.

Bodysnatcher
01-02-2011, 18:27
Hey Dale managed it. I'm actually better off losing the roll off so I can get the Bus in quicker.

Tae
01-02-2011, 18:43
Yes and how many double 1's / armour saves of 6 did he make?

Bodysnatcher
01-02-2011, 19:05
Point.

But the defending unit not being able to leave in the first turn is a big thing.

Malorian
02-02-2011, 16:00
The watchtower is designed to do 2 things:

1. It puts a stop to shooty armies as it forces combat

2. It gives small elite forces a fighting chance


If it was just a point on the table then a shooty army would just blast them to hell and move in on the last couple of turns to take it. The tower at least makes it at -2 and being stubborn means the last few guys can't just be pushed off with combat res.

If it was a point it would also make it a pure game of first turn as super large hordes just moved up to be the first on the point.


Many don't like the watch tower, but that's mainly because they are looking at how the rules effect their list and not what the mission was actually designed for.

Trains_Get_Robbed
02-02-2011, 16:57
I agree with Mal above. ^^^

If I know my Brets are terrible at the Watchtower then instead I'll just throw my small unit of Bowmen in the tower, and then play a blocking game with the rest of my force. I like it as it awards tactical skill and elite units.

Glen_Savet
02-02-2011, 17:32
No such rule AFAIK. Only that 5 models per floor can shoot out of the tower, nothing about entering.

Theo

I think he was suggesting a possible fix to the building rules, to prevent the 40 strong Grave Guard unit from garrisoning the outhouse.

H33D
02-02-2011, 17:36
I think the best options at fixing the building rules would be to either:

-make it so building destruction is a normal part of the scenario, not just an optional set of rules in the back of the book. Heck, I think these rules should be part of every game.

-make it so the unit in the tower isn't stubborn, but gets to count all normal combat modifiers in it's advantage. The attacking unit would still only be able to count combat res for casualties. Makes them still hard to push out of the tower but not impossible.

Gazak Blacktoof
02-02-2011, 18:05
Many don't like the watch tower, but that's mainly because they are looking at how the rules effect their list and not what the mission was actually designed for.

I don't like what it does to the game. Large units with a high leadership and tough troops are too difficult to shift in this scenario and have too large an impact upon it. These units aren't bad in other scenarios so I don't see the need for a scenario that makes them even better in the meta game.

I've read plenty of batreps, watched games and listened to podcasts reports that result in similar victories; where by the unit in the tower is the last unit standing (or near enough) and wins the game by itself, with the majority of the enemy gnashing their teeth outside. This results in a disappointing game where manoeuvre and tactics are less important than lists, leaving a bitter memory for both players.

Of course your experiences of the scenario may be totally different, I've not read one of your batreps in a few months.

Havock
02-02-2011, 23:38
Problems with Watchtower are no different to problems from any other scenario:

1. You don't take a list that is balanced enough to be able to play the scenario. This will affect any game, and other scenarios like Blood and glory.

2. You play a bad match-up. In these instances, without some excellent tactical play, you can lose anyway even assuming fairly similar skill/experience levels.

My list is fairly 'all comers'.


If your opponent has a Deathstar, here's a wacky idea: don't let hi get in in the tower. He can only assault it in the movement phase, so you make sure your tower unit is as sturdy as possible. I take the flaming banner on my dark elf spears, just to try and maximise their casualties. You also make sure your BSB and general are in range so that survivors will have the greatest chance possible of passing their test. Because you can measure this and plan it out easily, if you're not doing it then you're putting yourself at a disadvantage.

Which can be hard because whoever has first turn gets into the building come turn 2. Be it me or my opponent, it doesn't matter, it is too dependant on that. Removing the Auto-stubborn part should do. And a maximum amount of models that can fit in there.

Malorian
03-02-2011, 01:26
No, you need the stubborn in the building otherwise killy units have even more of an advantage.


I agree there should be a max size thuogh worked much like shooting. Something like:

Each floor of the building allows for 5 models to shoot and can hold 10 models. So in a three story building it could hold only up to 30 models and of those 15 could shoot.

dougch
03-02-2011, 02:45
so what? aas ogres we just get to lose watchtower? buildings in both versions of 40k are ridiclous to the extreme. i dont want to auto lose when i come up to buildings

Glen_Savet
03-02-2011, 03:28
Ogres can hide in buildings too. And get more attacks then almost any other group of 10 that can fight.

decker_cky
03-02-2011, 06:18
They should allow 4 monstrous infantry to fight in combat. They really are hoodwinked in combat compared to elite infantry (which they tend to pay the price of).

Havock
03-02-2011, 10:47
No, you need the stubborn in the building otherwise killy units have even more of an advantage.

It is an either-or, because it can be hard to shift a horde of 50 models from a tower if there is a character with decent Ld in there or something. ESPECIALLY with the bumping out of combat. I suppose that would alleviate the problem already, remove that.

Also, can you destroy the watchtower? I don't have the rulebook here so, yeah, that.

Malorian
03-02-2011, 13:43
It is an either-or, because it can be hard to shift a horde of 50 models from a tower if there is a character with decent Ld in there or something. ESPECIALLY with the bumping out of combat. I suppose that would alleviate the problem already, remove that.

Also, can you destroy the watchtower? I don't have the rulebook here so, yeah, that.

Not really... I have 60 swordmen in a building, you have 10 khorne warriors w/ extra handweapons. Had it not been for the watchtower I would be steadfast, but in the tower I have no ranks. You kill 15, the swordmen kill 1... they are now testing at -14...


Skaven can destroy the tower, and there are rules later on in the big book for how to destroy them however those aren't meant for regular games.

Havock
03-02-2011, 17:45
Hmm, fair enough. But it is not swordsmen which are the problem, it is a bunch of handgunners sitting in there, stand and shooting, bumping me out of combat and shooting at me again.

Anyway, I just want to destroy the tower if a particulary annoying unit is in hit: Aim hellcannon, watch fireworks. Even if it penalizes me (which it should, you just willingly destroyed the objective)

Malorian
03-02-2011, 21:19
Remember that no matter how many of them there are that only 5 can shoot per level.

Might I suggest you buy smaller towers? ;)

beaumontbrawler
04-02-2011, 19:46
Unit capable of being replenished through raising (lore of life or VC/TK) deployed in the watchtower = not much fun and nearly auto loss, absent building destruction = no thanks!

Havock
04-02-2011, 20:49
Remember that no matter how many of them there are that only 5 can shoot per level.

Might I suggest you buy smaller towers? ;)

Derp, silly, still, it was mostly mathammering, I haven't actually played the scenario, but I can see its 'problems'.

Pigboyneo
04-02-2011, 21:38
IMO I think part of the problem with the watch tower is that there is only 1 watch tower. If both side started with a watch tower then the game would be far more fun and bring abit more tactics into this scenario. Being as you would have to have a good offence, while still maintaining a good defence. Then again if people have a problem with the current scenario whats stopping them from making their own?

Gazak Blacktoof
04-02-2011, 22:03
Then again if people have a problem with the current scenario whats stopping them from making there own?

Nothing, and I'm sure some people have or will make heir own version.

scruffyryan
04-02-2011, 23:13
So, beyond the bitching about the scenario as it stands(which is pretty irrelevant to this thread honestly), does what i've suggested do anything to fix it?

Has anyone who has commented on it given it a try?

Watchtower as normal, + 2 non building capture points, 2 of 3 held = victory?

hashrat
05-02-2011, 00:05
Altough I enjoy this scenario I think it's main weakness is having a single capture point that attracts both forces in full.
Played a tester before with the mansion set, wich has 4 capture points, basically like having 4 towers in the middle of the table, it made turn 1 capture impossible. Frankly it was fun, but didn't solve 1 problem, both armies in the centre of the table.

We dropped the mansion and ran with 3 towers next, one central and one on either flank, this forced both armies to figh the full length of the table, forced the general and BSB to pick one tower to support and meant any one using a death star designed for a turn 1 capture would still only hold 1 building.

It got late but as of now 2 towers are contested and I hold the leftmost mainly due to panic, his army like mine is spread thin due to 3 towers.
If I secure the leftmost tower I can send troops to help in the centre.
We found utilising the entire table more fun.

I should add the lists we have are not designed with any specific scenario in mind.

Malorian
06-02-2011, 07:58
So, beyond the bitching about the scenario as it stands(which is pretty irrelevant to this thread honestly), does what i've suggested do anything to fix it?

Has anyone who has commented on it given it a try?

Watchtower as normal, + 2 non building capture points, 2 of 3 held = victory?

Just like only 5 models per level can shoot, it can only hold 10 models per level.


By the way, just played a watchtower mission and it was awesome. 7 turns of it coming down to the wire and almost everything dead.

Urgat
06-02-2011, 09:22
Skaven can destroy the tower, and there are rules later on in the big book for how to destroy them however those aren't meant for regular games.

Mmh, I remember reading somewhere in the BRB about destroying the watchtower and how you need to control the rumbles to win?

sorberec
06-02-2011, 10:04
how you need to control the rumbles to win?

What does making sure you're not hungry have to do with winning the game? :D

theorox
06-02-2011, 10:22
What does making sure you're not hungry have to do with winning the game? :D

Disturbing gut noises might make you lose your concentration and tactical mindset...? :wtf:

Theo

Urgat
06-02-2011, 22:18
Hush :p I'll point to your sig and claim it ought to work both ways, Theorox :p

Havock
07-02-2011, 01:55
Just like only 5 models per level can shoot, it can only hold 10 models per level.


By the way, just played a watchtower mission and it was awesome. 7 turns of it coming down to the wire and almost everything dead.

Yeah, fine for casual games but totally unsuited for tournament play, getting past turn 4 can be hard ;)

Marshal Torrick
08-02-2011, 04:20
Every time I've played with my VC my opponents have had the darndest time kicking my Grave Guard with Lord and Regen BSB out of it. I guess my meta doesn't take enough flaming attacks.

H33D
13-02-2011, 07:30
I think that the best way to even out this scenario would be to extend the average game length by 2 turns. Maybe add a D3 to the turn number and when it equal 9 the game is over. It always seem in my area that you have just enough time to whittle the unit in the watchtower down to a model or two before someone rolls a 5+ on turn 5 and the game ends. :(

friendsofrhomb
13-02-2011, 22:22
I've found the best unit I have to hold the watchtower with my two armies (TK and O&G) is a unit of 4 ushabti :) they've beaten out chaos warriors and blackguard. I have a question though, can monstrous infantry like ushabti garrison a building? We couldnt find anything in the rules that said they couldnt.

brynolf
13-02-2011, 22:36
That's because they can. Only cav and monsters cannot.

Havock
14-02-2011, 01:25
Also, should cavalry be able to attack units in a building?
It wouldn't be far fetched and hard to implement a rule in which models designated to participate in the assault party dismount and lose their mount for that combat.

scruffyryan
14-02-2011, 03:11
Also, should cavalry be able to attack units in a building?
It wouldn't be far fetched and hard to implement a rule in which models designated to participate in the assault party dismount and lose their mount for that combat.

That's actually how it works, they can assault it but they cannot garrison the building after.