PDA

View Full Version : Dwarf Lord with shield bearers.



Goldengroove
11-09-2006, 15:12
Hi.

Really quick question, does a Dwarf Lord on a shield count as mounted for the purposes of having a Great Weapon?

Thanks a lot. I just couldn't find the answer for it.

x

T10
11-09-2006, 16:28
It seems reasonable.

The Shield Bearers rules do not explicitly stat that the character counts as being mounted, but I would accept the argument that since he is not a model on foot he best qualifies as a mounted model.

-T10

Capslock
11-09-2006, 16:59
I would argue that he is not as his "shieldbearers" have no individual stat line. It states implicitly in the Dwarf rules that the sheild "mount" serves only to add the +2 armor and two S4 WS 5 attacks to the Lord himself. Also, to claim is as a mount to rob the Lord of his GW would be rather petty, IMHO as the rule was created to stop the lone hero on horseback/whateverback zooming around the battlefield with S 7.

Krusk
11-09-2006, 17:04
Along this line of thought, does a character on a chariot count as being mounted in regards to Great Weapons?

Gekiganger
11-09-2006, 17:07
I'd say no, but this wouldn't be formed from anything except self oppinion.

I'm guessing that the mounted rule for GW is simply because charging around on a horse gives you less stability to use the GW to it's full effect. A shield or chariot is pretty stable so I'd say no, he is not mounted.

*Waits for somone to come along with rule quotes*

hertz
11-09-2006, 17:07
Along this line of thought, does a character on a chariot count as being mounted in regards to Great Weapons?


I would assume so, as I am under the impression that a character on chariot can use a lance wich is -mounted models only-

NakedFisherman
11-09-2006, 17:13
'The Shieldbearers add 2 to the Armour Save of the character (to a maximum of 1+) mounted on the shield.'

Goldengroove
11-09-2006, 17:25
It's a hard one isn't it?

But personally, I would say that he does count as mounted.

Why?
Firstly for what NakedFisherman said above me but also, I would have to say standing on a shield is LESS stable than on horseback. Common sense dictates so.
I'm saying this even though I would love to have a Dwarf Lord with a Great Weapon on a shield. Fair play > all!

On this note however, another small question which I forgot to include:
The Rule of Pride states that you cannot carry the same combination of Runes on any one item. Could I, for example, have a Cannon with a Rune of Forging and a Stalwart Rune, and then another Cannon with a Rune of Forging and a Valiant Rune? The question which resides in my mind is the fact they both have a Rune of Forging.

Thanks
x

NakedFisherman
11-09-2006, 17:33
Could I, for example, have a Cannon with a Rune of Forging and a Stalwart Rune, and then another Cannon with a Rune of Forging and a Valiant Rune? The question which resides in my mind is the fact they both have a Rune of Forging.

Yes, you may.

gukal
11-09-2006, 19:19
'The Shieldbearers add 2 to the Armour Save of the character (to a maximum of 1+) mounted on the shield.'

In my opinion, this quote is not dispositive by itself. Please note that "infantry models are mounted on a 20mm, 25mm, or 40mm wide square base." ... thereby reducing the effectiveness of infantry with greatweapons? :angel:

However, the quote is still somewhat supportive of the proposition. Also, the shieldbearer upgrade is closely akin to a horse upgrade (better armor; more attacks; higher US), but it is not as obviously "mounted." For lack of anything definitive, I'd classify this upgrade a mount and give the Dwarf Lord a cheap runic combination instead of a great weapon.

- Gukal

GodHead
11-09-2006, 19:27
He lost the ability to be killing-blowed by being US3 in the new book, so I think it's a fair tradeoff to lose +2S great weapons for being mounted.

Although then that opens up the kettle of fish that if he is mounted he is a US1 model on a mount, and can therefore be killing blowed again, which makes it not "a fair tradefoff", but is logically consistent and makes sense.

NakedFisherman
11-09-2006, 20:04
In my opinion, this quote is not dispositive by itself. Please note that "infantry models are mounted on a 20mm, 25mm, or 40mm wide square base." ... thereby reducing the effectiveness of infantry with greatweapons? :angel:

That sentence is largely pragmatic. A similar sentence describes the Dwarf Lord's base with Shieldbearers, but it's of little concern to the actual rules aside from those involved with base sizes.

shartmatau
11-09-2006, 20:18
If a lord takes shield bearers he does not count as riding a mount. For two reasons. Every model on a mount has a stat line for the mount (movement, str, tough, attacks, initiative, attacks, etc) Second, every unit/character that can take a mount state in the unit description something to the effect of: Unit may be mounted on any of the following, horse, dragon, etc.

Shieldbearers has neither of these. It is an upgrade to the character, similar to other items such as magic items. This is different because it is only available to dwarf lords.

gukal
11-09-2006, 20:27
That sentence is largely pragmatic. A similar sentence describes the Dwarf Lord's base with Shieldbearers, but it's of little concern to the actual rules aside from those involved with base sizes.

I mostly agree. The best answer is that the Dwarf is mounted for purposes of the great weapon rules.

I do feel however that as army-specific "mount" upgrades diverge from traditional mounts, Games Workshop should make an extra effort to describe the upgrade as a mount.

Its only a matter of time before some joker argues to me that standing on an oathstone equates to being mounted.

- Gukal

Shagrat
11-09-2006, 20:40
If a lord takes shield bearers he does not count as riding a mount. For two reasons. Every model on a mount has a stat line for the mount (movement, str, tough, attacks, initiative, attacks, etc)

NOOO, SIR!!!

Do you ever heard of Bloodcrushers, Pleasureseekers, etc?

They are mounted, count as cavalry, and have only one statline for the rider and the mount.

OPS!

shartmatau
11-09-2006, 21:04
NOOO, SIR!!!

Do you ever heard of Bloodcrushers, Pleasureseekers, etc?

They are mounted, count as cavalry, and have only one statline for the rider and the mount.

OPS!

I don't know the rules for these specifically. What does exactly does it say in the unit description? Does it say that the unit is cavalry? rides a mount but uses 1 statline? For every unit I have read the description of, these things are explicitly stated.

Another note. I don't think this counts for every single unit but it might. (please bring up exceptions if you know of them) If riding a mount means you count as cavalry, then wouldn't that involve being able to move faster. If shieldbearers granted a dwarf lord the ability to move any faster than normal dwarf movement, I would immediately concede that he is riding a mount.

EvC
11-09-2006, 21:11
That seems to be as arbitrary a way of determining if it's a mount as checking to see whether the mount has hooves or not...

Bran Dawri
11-09-2006, 21:19
For lack of anything definitive, I'd classify this upgrade a mount and give the Dwarf Lord a cheap runic combination instead of a great weapon.

Or an expensive runic combination :P . My own lord won't be affected (except in rare cases of item-nullifiers), but a friend who also uses dwarfs isn't going to like this.

alextroy
12-09-2006, 04:54
I am not sure about the specifics on the Shieldbearer rules, but as far as the basic rules are concerned a character is mounted if on a steed, monstrous mount, or chariot.

static grass
12-09-2006, 08:01
The choice here is if he is cavalry or infantry. When I look at the miniture he looks like infantry to me.

by the way "prove" is a synonym of "test".

SON OF LION
12-09-2006, 08:09
I don't know whether or not he counts as mounted, but if he did then the lore of beasts is going to be fun.:D

Finn Sourscowl
12-09-2006, 08:11
Bugger... hadn't thought about this yet in relation to 7th Ed. The tooled-up version of my dwarf lord has a GW (with MR Kragg the grim) and shield bearers. Personally, I think that if he can't use a GW (or can only get +1 S from it and still have to strike last), but is now immune to killing blow, I think that's a fair trade off... just have to rethink the rune combination :)

I wonder if the supposed Q&A will cover this...

lord_blackfang
12-09-2006, 08:32
So if a Dwarf Lord could somehow get his hands on a lance, he'd be +2 when charging?

Avian
12-09-2006, 09:04
The choice here is if he is cavalry or infantry. When I look at the miniture he looks like infantry to me.
His feet are off the ground - I'd say he's mounted. :p

Bran Dawri
12-09-2006, 10:45
by the way "prove" is a synonym of "test".

No, it isn't.

Gekiganger
12-09-2006, 11:15
His feet are off the ground - I'd say he's mounted. :p

That would be very unethical for a dwarf lord to be caught counting as mounted :p

Pretty sure dwarven shoulders are more sturdy than a galloping horse too.

EvC
12-09-2006, 11:34
Another set of parameters might be the base size- the Shieldbearer comes on two 20mm bases, does it not? Unfortunately though, I think it was only a 6th edition addendum that stated cavalry is any model on a 25mm x 50mm base (Plus other factors)...

Avian
12-09-2006, 11:57
Another set of parameters might be the base size
Doesn't work. His base doesn't fit into any of the categories - infantry OR cavalry. :p

Revlid
12-09-2006, 12:22
What is his base size, anyway? All the pictures I've seen involve him being placed between two 20x20 bases with his bearers on them... 40x20?

Gekiganger
12-09-2006, 12:28
What is his base size, anyway? All the pictures I've seen involve him being placed between two 20x20 bases with his bearers on them... 40x20?

Indeed, that is the correct size.

'The General fights as a single model with unit strength 3 (even in cahllenges).They are mounted on a 40mm wide by 20mm deep base'
Pg 29 Dwarf Army Book.

lord_blackfang
12-09-2006, 13:50
Page 7, clear definition of Cavalry. 25x50 base a requirement. Thanks for playing.

Festus
12-09-2006, 15:05
Hi

Definitely not cavalry, but may still be mounted...

..cannot be a monster rider, either: 40+mm Base (or commonly known as *Monster base*)

TBH, I'd simply count him as two/three Infantry models, nothing more, nothing less: Can be KB'ed, has US3 as 3 Infantry, uses 20x40mmm as 2 Infantry, and may use a GW with +2S.

Least Problems here.

Festus

edit: Otherwise we will have another problem regarding the movement of a shieldborn Dwarf... cf. p.72.

Avian
12-09-2006, 15:21
uses 20x40mmm as 2 Infantry
Can I count my cavalry models as infantry? Their bases are the same size as two infantry bases. :p

Bah!

Infantry in the rulebook is listed as models on foot on 20, 25 or 40 mm square bases. The Shieldbearers are most definitely not on any of those types.

In fact, all the oblong based models in the game count as mounted AFAIK.

And I have serious problems with anyone claiming that being carried around on a shield help up by two other dwarfs makes for a stable fighting platform! :p

shartmatau
12-09-2006, 15:50
'The Shieldbearers add 2 to the Armour Save of the character (to a maximum of 1+) mounted on the shield.'

This is the only reference to even suggest that a lord would be mounted. I am not a subscriber to this one word meaning that the lord is in fact a character on a mount. If you look at this compared to the dwarf army (to give it context), there are several things to notice.

1. No other Dwarf can be mounted on anything.
2. There are many items that confer stat bonuses to units. Granted these are runic items.
3. There is no special notation that says the lord counts as being on a mount. Which if this were the case, it would make sense to have this special notation.
4. Although his base is not a regular infantry base. It also does not fit into the cavalry base size. So base size can not categorize the lord into either.
and finally
5. come on... come on........:)

and for another note, why give your lord a great weapon when you can give him a runic weapon and he can kick that much more ass.

Avian
12-09-2006, 16:08
1. And Beastmen can only ride chariots. That doesn't mean that the chariot is not a mount.
2. Giving a bonus to your army save and unit strength while giving extra attacks with their own profile while the actual component models that deliver these attacks cannot be targeted separately and using an oblong base are in fact typical traits of having a steed.
3. GW often do not do things that would have made sense and failing to give definitions is almost a trade mark for them. :p
4. As I said, infantry all use square bases, while all oblong bases are mounted.
5. Feet far off the ground, how is he a pedestrian? :p

lord_blackfang
12-09-2006, 16:32
Page 55, bottom right corner, very clearly lists what "mounted" means in the context of weapon rules. Cavalry, models riding monsters and chariots. A Dwarf Lord is none of the above.

And let's flip back to page 7. Cavalry is very clearly defined as 25x50, no exceptions. The definition of Infantry (also Chariots and Monsters, but surely you're not trying to shoehorn our poor Lord there) allows exceptions.

Gekiganger
12-09-2006, 16:40
And I have serious problems with anyone claiming that being carried around on a shield help up by two other dwarfs makes for a stable fighting platform! :p

I claim such a thing! :)

Dwarves are a stout, strong and sturdy race. Furthermore I doubt a Dwarf Lord (Some of royal blood) would entrust his honour and life to dwarves who couldn't hold a shield stable.

Latro
12-09-2006, 16:56
4. As I said, infantry all use square bases, while all oblong bases are mounted.


- new Giant
- Skaven weapon teams

:p

shartmatau
12-09-2006, 18:06
1. And Beastmen can only ride chariots. That doesn't mean that the chariot is not a mount.
2. Giving a bonus to your army save and unit strength while giving extra attacks with their own profile while the actual component models that deliver these attacks cannot be targeted separately and using an oblong base are in fact typical traits of having a steed.
3. GW often do not do things that would have made sense and failing to give definitions is almost a trade mark for them. :p
4. As I said, infantry all use square bases, while all oblong bases are mounted.
5. Feet far off the ground, how is he a pedestrian? :p

1. I don't claim the chariot is not a mount. Chariots are clearly defined as being a mount. Not to mention that numerous armies have the use of chariots. This is completely different than the context of dwarves which have no mounts available to any unit in the entire army.

2. an oblong base may be a typical trait of mounts. Another typical trait would be that the short side of the base is the front of the model. Strange how the specifications for the shieldbearers is 40x20 not 20x40.
3. Making a general statement of GW's writing skills brings no actual argument to the table. So everytime they write anything it should be immediately taken as irrelevant because its a mistake. People bring this up all the time and I find it ridiculous. 95% of everything they write makes perfect sense, that last 5% is usually not very confusing at all if you look at it in context. But people don't do that, they immdiately say. "how can that be? that must be a mistake!" Tell you what, you write a 150 page rulebook and 13 army books and make a game that is easy to play yet strategic enough to be fun for veterans. Oh yeh and then don't make any mistakes and write it perfectly so that there is no need for anyone to ever question the rules, that handles every possible situation that could possibly arise within said game.

Sorry for the rant and its not meant to be directed specifically at you but rather everyone.

4. It says nowhere that all oblong bases are mounts. As I said, the size of the base doesn't fit into any category and should not be used as the sole reason to categorize it.

5. my line was from Family Guy. gitygitygity

Cheers.

Gekiganger
12-09-2006, 18:10
- new Giant
- Skaven weapon teams

:p

Giants are monsters AFAIK.

Skaven weapon teams are dealt with in the army book.

'Treat them exactly like cavalry models, except where otherwise specified. This means they have a unit strength of 2 and get a 6+ basic save (to represent there are 2 models to kill, similar to teh cavalry model). This also explains their 2 attacks'

NakedFisherman
12-09-2006, 18:13
Page 55, bottom right corner, very clearly lists what "mounted" means in the context of weapon rules. Cavalry, models riding monsters and chariots. A Dwarf Lord is none of the above.

Yup. What he said.

Garazdraki
12-09-2006, 19:02
http://us.games-workshop.com/games/warhammer/dwarfs/extras/designernotes/default.htm
Designer note from "Oath and Honor"

...
Lords of the Hold

As well as the Oath Stone, Dwarf characters can also take Shieldbearers as wargear. "One thing that makes an army look good is a General model on a monster, but that is obviously something you can't do with Dwarfs," explains Gav. "Having a character on an Oath Stone or a Lord with Shieldbearers allows you to make centerpiece models for your army."
...

I would say all of you interpret too much into the rules.
It is only infantry which is used as centerpiece.

NakedFisherman
12-09-2006, 19:10
http://us.games-workshop.com/games/warhammer/dwarfs/extras/designernotes/default.htm
Designer note from "Oath and Honor"

...
Lords of the Hold

As well as the Oath Stone, Dwarf characters can also take Shieldbearers as wargear. "One thing that makes an army look good is a General model on a monster, but that is obviously something you can't do with Dwarfs," explains Gav. "Having a character on an Oath Stone or a Lord with Shieldbearers allows you to make centerpiece models for your army."
...

I would say all of you interpret too much into the rules.
It is only infantry which is used as centerpiece.

That has nothing to do with rules or the discussion at all...

It's about modelling...

Festus
12-09-2006, 19:18
Hi

That has nothing to do with rules or the discussion at all...

It's about modelling...
Although he does have a point there: GW sells models first, rules second. And this is even a games design philosophy of their's (hence the ambiguous and partially badly written rules).

I see it in a similar way: The Lord is/should be Infantry in all rules respects, as benefits a Dwarf (other than those maniac Gyrocopter pilots, however :p).

Greetings
Festus

Gekiganger
12-09-2006, 20:07
Indeed, they should follow infantry rules even if the model doesn't show this amazingly well.

Side note: How tempting is it to model a giant oath stone (on a 40mm base) with the dwarf off the shield on? One day when I have money to spare I'll make such a beast...

Bran Dawri
12-09-2006, 20:37
Indeed, they should follow infantry rules even if the model doesn't show this amazingly well.

Side note: How tempting is it to model a giant oath stone (on a 40mm base) with the dwarf off the shield on? One day when I have money to spare I'll make such a beast...

I'm building one right now. Ogre-size or larger base, with a huge stone (shaped like a stone dwarf head if I have my way) being rolled forward on logs by the Stonebearer unit and the character (currently my BSB) on top.
:D

Gonna take it to next year's Dutch GT assuming I'll ever get it finished.

CrimsonFOX
13-09-2006, 03:56
3. Making a general statement of GW's writing skills brings no actual argument to the table. So everytime they write anything it should be immediately taken as irrelevant because its a mistake. People bring this up all the time and I find it ridiculous. 95% of everything they write makes perfect sense, that last 5% is usually not very confusing at all if you look at it in context. But people don't do that, they immdiately say. "how can that be? that must be a mistake!" Tell you what, you write a 150 page rulebook and 13 army books and make a game that is easy to play yet strategic enough to be fun for veterans. Oh yeh and then don't make any mistakes and write it perfectly so that there is no need for anyone to ever question the rules, that handles every possible situation that could possibly arise within said game.

Sorry for the rant and its not meant to be directed specifically at you but rather everyone.

Here here! GW does a great job. People just like to nitpick and cause problems. Off-topic, but I think this same thing every time someone complains about GW on here I just haven't blown up and ranted yet ;-)

The Machine GoD
13-09-2006, 04:19
It also states somewhere in the dwarf codex that he is considered normal size and can not be picked outta the unit/

WLBjork
13-09-2006, 08:13
It's already been pointed out that the last paragraph on pg 55 makes it clear that mounted effects only apply to Cavalry, Monsters and Chariots.

static grass
13-09-2006, 08:28
Here here! GW does a great job. People just like to nitpick and cause problems. Off-topic, but I think this same thing every time someone complains about GW on here I just haven't blown up and ranted yet ;-)

Seconded this current book in terms of clarity is the best one by far. Shall we close the thread?

T10
13-09-2006, 09:10
No, leave it open so that some one can accidentally ressurect it in the future.

That's always fun.

-T10

xmbk
13-09-2006, 23:12
page 7: "Normally, Infantry models are mounted on a 20mm, 25mm or 40mm wide square base." I guess they all lose the +2.

The following paragraph states that Cavalry is always on a 25x50mm base. Then the bottom right corner of page 55 states that for the purposes of weapon rules, "mounted" only refers to cavalry and models on chariots and monster mounts.

If that isn't conclusive, then I'm cutting off your tab at Bugman's. :evilgrin:

Goldengroove
14-09-2006, 17:27
You guys are taking the context out of my original post...

I am not ranting...
I'm merely asking for a rule clarification, (which is what this part of the forum is for), for my Dwarf army which I have just begun.

I hear no rant, I hear a question. :)

Right, thanks to all of the replies. I now stand by common sense, that a Dwarf Lord on a shield falls under the rules of infantry. Can be victim to killing blow, and can use the +2 strength of a Great Weapon. Think about this one... A Dwarf Lord may look almighty on top of a massive bronze shield, but at the end of the day, no amount of looking the part is going to help when a sharpened axe of Khorne decides to extend a warm welcome to his neck...

x

xmbk
14-09-2006, 22:13
No worries, it was a legit question. But the answer is fairly conclusive, unlike some other 7e issues. :(