PDA

View Full Version : Nurgle Palaquin Questions



Luisjoey
24-05-2011, 16:09
Well, with the new edition many questions arises between my gaming group, please help me.

Does the Palaquin of nurgle a Infantry Mount?
Can it take the normal "look out sir" rule if in a infantry unit?
How big is the base? 25X25 or the bigger one? 40x40???

thank you in advance

Tregar
24-05-2011, 16:51
This is a bit of a controversial subject; by the rules for cavalry, if you're mounted on a one-wound mount, you're cavalry. Since the Palanquin is a one-wound mount, that means ride it, and you're cavalry. This is backed up by the Night Goblin Squig Hoppers, who are infantry mounted on infantry, and are listed as cavalry.

However you might want to houserule it as remaining infantry, as it makes a pretty sucky option REALLY sucky otherwise.

GodlessM
24-05-2011, 17:08
It's not controversial at all. The cavarly section says normally a character on a one wound mount is cavalry, however it does not list a rule that says they are. Plus the FAQs have already set more than enough times that the unit types in the reference section of the BRB are to used.

Tregar
24-05-2011, 20:12
I can't find anything that says it vaguely as you suggest. What I can find is on P104 it says "a cavalry mount's key definition lies in the fact that it has only a single Wound. Therefore, if a character is riding a mount with a single wound, he is riding a cavalry mount."

That's why it's controversial: by the rules, an infantry character riding an infantry mount with one wound becomes a cavalry model. But what makes sense is for it to be infantry.

RMacDeezy
24-05-2011, 20:30
i know it won't stop the argument dead in its tracks, but the DoC special character on a palanquin is classed as infantry. i'd use this precedent to say that a character on a palanquin is infantry in light of the lack of clear offical ruling.

Tregar
24-05-2011, 21:34
It's a good precedent to use as a basis for ignoring the above rule, definitely!

Eta
24-05-2011, 21:40
Base size should be 50x50.

GodlessM
24-05-2011, 22:01
It's a good precedent to use as a basis for ignoring the above rule, definitely!

The FAQ's are a better precedent, wait, check, a better reason to ignore the above rule.

popisdead
24-05-2011, 22:27
Base size should be 50x50.

Yeah, I think this is spelled out in the book.

Have you looked up the unit type for a palanquinn in the BRB? If it's not there I'm sure the FAQ.

theunwantedbeing
24-05-2011, 22:39
As per the rules, its cavalry.
Because page 104 unhelpfully clarifies that cavalry is anything on a 1 wound mount.

It should really be infantry though.
Feel free to ask your opponent if its okay to use it as such, nothing wrong with making a house rules to cover an obvious mistake GW has made.

Izram
25-05-2011, 01:06
I am coming back to Warhammer after a hiatus for a few years and am just reviewing the new rules (It seems like Mono-Nurgle kind of got a serious nerf, which sucks and is also unrelated)

What I read from the FAQ: it says to ignore the Italic text under the Nurglings (which says the ridden palanquin is cavalry). It also says to check the BRB references for troop type (where it lists the palanquin as infantry). All the other mounts are warbeasts or monstrous something-or-others, and the palanquin can never be un-ridden. The special character which is on a palanquin is infantry as well (Epidemius).

This seems like fairly good evidence to point to a Ridden Palanquin being Infantry. The cavalry mount note and troop type are being directly dealt with with in the FAQ, which should override the pg.104 blanket-statement.

AMWOOD co
25-05-2011, 03:25
For those (like me) who argue that a mounted Palanquin is Infantry, you can use the first sentence describing Cavalry on p82: namely that Cavalry are Infantry riding a War Beast (paraphrased slightly, read it for exact wording). Since the Palanquin doesn't actually fall into any of these it sits in limbo. Therefore, the only precident for an Infantry sized model riding an infantry mount is Epidemius, who counts as Infantry as a whole.

This isn't airtight, but it's a nice place to show that we aren't simply ignoring rules.

GodlessM
25-05-2011, 11:59
As per the rules, its cavalry.
Because page 104 unhelpfully clarifies that cavalry is anything on a 1 wound mount.

As per the FAQs it's infantry.

Tregar
25-05-2011, 13:35
You know what I hate? When I'm playing a game in a GW store or similar, and someone makes a spurious claim about the rules and then vaguely says "it's in an FAQ". The FAQs don't quite claim what you're saying GodlessM (They just say to use the definitions in the back of the books, which tell us handily that a Palanquin is infantry. Unfortunately by the rules, infantry riding infantry is still cavalry!). This can be a contentious issue, which is why it's good to actually make your case, rather than just saying "it's in an FAQ". Anyone can just say that. The FAQ says what I say is right. See? It's useless :D


Therefore, the only precident for an Infantry sized model riding an infantry mount is Epidemius, who counts as Infantry as a whole.

Am I on your ignore list or something? ;) I specifically mentioned the one other case of infantry riding infantry (Night Goblins on Squigs, infantry on infantry, which makes cavalry) in the hope that people wouldn't make this false claim. Still, Epidemius is closer than a Squig Hopper so I'd prefer to go by that precedent anyway, as stated.

Bonus question: if we're not going to follow the rules for cavalry, does that mean no +1 armour save for a Chaos geezer riding a Palanquin? Seems a shame...

drear
25-05-2011, 14:17
the faq is very clear..ignore the cavalry refrence, use the troop type.

infantry..
its the same when a skaven rides a warlitter

stripsteak
25-05-2011, 17:19
its the same when a skaven rides a warlitter
skaven war litter has a specific rule that it is infantry

AMWOOD co
26-05-2011, 00:00
Am I on your ignore list or something? ;) I specifically mentioned the one other case of infantry riding infantry (Night Goblins on Squigs, infantry on infantry, which makes cavalry) in the hope that people wouldn't make this false claim. Still, Epidemius is closer than a Squig Hopper so I'd prefer to go by that precedent anyway, as stated.

Bonus question: if we're not going to follow the rules for cavalry, does that mean no +1 armour save for a Chaos geezer riding a Palanquin? Seems a shame...

Sorry, must have missed that as I browsed through, and I completely forgot that they changed squigs from Warbeasts to Infantry (though it does solve a few issues for the squig herd unit).

Anywho, as far as the +1 save goes... I'd say that's a toss up. I'd treat the model as cavalry for the most part (special rule interaction, use movement of steed and Ld, T and W of rider, etc) as those are the only things that make sense, but I would count it as Infantry for purposes of Look Out Sir and shooting at the unit (yes, I know I'm eating my cake and having it). As for the +1 save, I could care less.

For me, this is purely theoretical as I neither own a Palanquin nor face them (and I've never liked the look of Nurgle Warriors, so I don't see that changing any time soon).