PDA

View Full Version : Dwarf Lord on Shield Bearers; Mounted or not?



TheDarkDaff
06-04-2007, 16:28
The title is pretty self explainitory. I am lifting this from the Warhammer Realm site because no one there seems to be able to back there opinion up with some rules. It makes a difference when considering Great Weapons and other "on foot only" bonii(sp?).

Festus
06-04-2007, 16:45
Hi

He is mounted, and a model of a US3

Festus

Avian
06-04-2007, 17:31
He doesn't fit into any of the normal categories, so we really don't know, but his feet don't touch the ground and that is good enough for me personally.

Festus
06-04-2007, 17:45
Hi

The Dwarf book says on p.29:

"The shieldbearers add +2 Armour Save of the character ... mounted on the shield."

Emphasis mine.

Festus

Stouty
06-04-2007, 17:59
Unfortunately RAW is with festus (as always ;)) but it needs FAQing so badly as the +1 str mounted rule wasn't in place at time of release and I'm pretty sure they weren't thinking about it that much.

Unfortunatel dwarfs have already had an FAQ and are unlikely to get another one and thus unless you want to delve into the world of designers intent (have fun) it's +1 strength only. Don't ask why king Alaric uses the GW then. Just don't ask.

TheWarSmith
06-04-2007, 18:04
yeah, but the stupid thing also makes you immune to killing blow by RAW, so you get something for that too.

Personally I love the concept of that thing, but the rules for it need changing. Explain how if you take the dwarf down to 1 wound, the lord AND shield bearers are still kicking. They should have made it a monstrous mount, as weird as it would be.

WLBjork
07-04-2007, 08:31
He's not mounted according to the BRB definition, which is the latest definition available.

In the BRB, mounted is defined as Cavalry, Chariots and Monstrous Mounts.

The Shieldbearers fit into none of these categories.

Festus
07-04-2007, 08:34
Hi

He's not mounted according to the BRB definition, which is the latest definition available.

In the BRB, mounted is defined as Cavalry, Chariots and Monstrous Mounts.
Oh! You managed to find a proper definition of mounted in the BRB? Where, I pray, can I find this as well?

Festus

WLBjork
07-04-2007, 08:39
Can't give you page and paragraph now (don't have the book to hand), but it is in the Weapons Section.

Festus
07-04-2007, 08:40
No, sorry, that was the first place I looked. The only thing there is that a Lance requires cavalry, a Monster or a chariot, a GW only requires a chariot or *being mounted* (at least according to the German version).

edit: Anyway: The Shioeldbearers are such a special case that it is hard to imagine that they'd get their own mention in the BRB. I think that we can only go by the definition in the Dwarf Book, and there it explicitly is given as *mounted*.

Festus

WLBjork
07-04-2007, 08:46
Found the rule I was thinking of, it's quoted in another thread.


Sometimes the same weapon has 2 different entries, one referring to the use of the weapon made by infantry (and other models on foot) and the other referring to mounted models (cavalry and models riding monsters or chariots).

ehlijen
07-04-2007, 11:11
What about page 7? It gives a definition of cavalry, monsters and chariots by base size. What is the base size of a dwarf lord on shield?

Bloodknight
07-04-2007, 11:15
20x40mm. It fits no category.

ehlijen
07-04-2007, 12:21
ok, then that idea's out....

Do the shield guys give him an armour save bonus? If so, you could say that they act as cavalry, no?

Bloodknight
07-04-2007, 12:52
Possibly. It grants a +2 to armour, like a barded horse.

Atrahasis
07-04-2007, 12:57
Do the shield guys give him an armour save bonus? If so, you could say that they act as cavalry, no?Does that then mean that a shield makes someone cavalry?

WLBjork
07-04-2007, 13:23
Also, contrast Montrous Mounts which don't give a save bonus.

It's difficult to categorise, but my opinion is that GW intend mounted to refer to Cavalry, Chariots and Monstrous Mounts.

Otherwise, we have the unusual position where a Magic Item that affects Mounted Models could affect Dwarfs who would otherwise be immune!

Parka boy
07-04-2007, 13:40
yeah, but the stupid thing also makes you immune to killing blow by RAW, so you get something for that too.

Personally I love the concept of that thing, but the rules for it need changing. Explain how if you take the dwarf down to 1 wound, the lord AND shield bearers are still kicking. They should have made it a monstrous mount, as weird as it would be.

I'm with you there but so much of the new dwarf book is a tad to blaggy

Bran Dawri
07-04-2007, 15:15
Hi. It might not resolve the issue, but in the other two 7th edition books (empire and greenskins), characters purchasing a mount are mentioned as:

"May ride a boar (x points) or may ride on a chariot."

The shieldbearer entry doesn't say this.

Also, page 7 (BRB) lists unit types - none of them really fit the dwarf lord with shieldbearers, but IMO, either infantry, monster are the closest.
Cavalry is defined as having unit strength 2 (pg 71), so a dwarf lord on shieldbearers is not cavalry - he has US 3.
Since the shieldbearers can't be independantly destroyed, they don't count as a chariot or a monstrous mount either (plus, wrong unit sizes and no characteristics of their own kinda disqualify them from counting as cavalry as well).
That leaves monster, infantry or Up to & including ogresize from the categories on p/ 71.
Arguments can be made why any of these categories don't fit either.

There's a kind of red thread running through the whole "mounted" thing though: the mounts always have characteristics of their own - whether a chariot, cavalry model, or monstrous mount. Shieldbearers do not; they give the lord riding it bonuses to his stats, not unlike things like Marks of Chaos or similar.
They aren't purchased with the same phraseology as mounts either.

Conclusion: Ehhh, it's a mess, really. Arguments can be made for both sides, with discussion going round in circles.
Personally, I'm tended towards the "doesn't count as mount for rules purposes" argument, though it may be a bias due to playing dwarfs and having no one argue this before.

DeathlessDraich
07-04-2007, 17:18
Does that then mean that a shield makes someone cavalry?

I recall quite vividly in another thread that you quoted a statement from the rules that a shield needs only "to be carried" to grant an armour save.

This shield is definitely carried and by your previous reasoning must grant an armour save:p

Atrahasis
07-04-2007, 17:51
I recall quite vividly in another thread that you quoted a statement from the rules that a shield needs only "to be carried" to grant an armour save.

This shield is definitely carried and by your previous reasoning must grant an armour save:p

How is that in any way relevant to what I said in this thread? :confused:

Festus
07-04-2007, 19:34
He's just teasing. You know how much he sometimes wants to come out and play - even if his mother said no... :D

Festus

edit: But on second thoughts - this happens to be one of the main problems of GW's rule's writing: sloppy terminology. When is an item carried, when is it worn, when is it equipped, when used, and when mounted?

Well it seems, DD has a point in a way... ;)

Parka boy
07-04-2007, 21:35
There are so many examples off sloppy terminology that " mr. Monk" would die of a heart attack if he read rules.

A list of universal terms would go very far to fix so many of the rules problems. You think someone being paid by GW would have come up with the idea by now.

eldrak
08-04-2007, 17:06
Nobody has mentioned that models are mounted on their bases yet?

Ganymede
08-04-2007, 17:50
Also, contrast Montrous Mounts which don't give a save bonus.

It's difficult to categorise, but my opinion is that GW intend mounted to refer to Cavalry, Chariots and Monstrous Mounts.

Otherwise, we have the unusual position where a Magic Item that affects Mounted Models could affect Dwarfs who would otherwise be immune!

This is a very good point, though it might not be as much of a can of worms as one would think. Check out this response from GW regarding a similar situation.

Q. It states in the book that some Skaven units are
treated exactly like cavalry. Does that mean that the
Screaming Bell can affect them as it does cavalry? Does
it mean that spells which affect cavalry units affect
these Skaven units in the same way?
A. No. They are not affected by spells that affect cavalry
because these spells generally speak of targeting the
mounts (ie, scaring horses).

Extrapolating the above clarification, we have the precedence to reasonably conclude that the Dwarven lord could count as mounted without necessarily being vulnerable to spells that only work against cavalry.

intellectawe
09-04-2007, 01:51
He is mounted, but he is not Mounted.

The lord's description states he is mounted on a shield, but that is just that, a description. This in now way states that he follows the rules for being Mounted. He has to be "something" on that shield, and the writer choose to use the word mounted instead of carried, placed upon, put on, etc etc...

The Dwarven Lord is not Mounted. There is near to no evidence that supports him being Mounted besides what people personally feel and the word mounted in his description of fluff. If he were Mounted, then there would be a separate section saying he is to be treated as such and such and follows such and such rules.

Ganymede
09-04-2007, 03:32
Beware of discarding your opponent's arguement lest you look like you are arguing a strawman.

There are certainly compelling reasons to believe that the said lord counts as mounted, Namely the fact that it is mentioned in his profile and the fact that the model sure as hell looks like it is mounted. Granted, the rulebook is painfully unclear on the subject, but it would be unwise to completely discount the possibility.

intellectawe
09-04-2007, 03:58
Beware of discarding your opponent's arguement lest you look like you are arguing a strawman.

There are certainly compelling reasons to believe that the said lord counts as mounted, Namely the fact that it is mentioned in his profile and the fact that the model sure as hell looks like it is mounted. Granted, the rulebook is painfully unclear on the subject, but it would be unwise to completely discount the possibility.

First point... It is mentioned, but not as a rule. A wolf is cavalry, but rules wise, in the weapon section, a wolf is mounted if it were to ever get a 2 handed weapon. What is mounted and what isn't is explained in the main rule book. The Dwarf Lord uses a base that isn't listed as being 'cavalry'. He isn't a monster, he isn't anything really but infantry. You would need a rule that gives him Mounted besides a word in his fluff description.

Second point... That has nothing to do with the rules. Rules define how a model looks, not the other way around. You can give your model a sword and shield, but if he is a pikeman rules wise, his sword and shield do not exist.

Fact is, models do not come with rules. They are pieces of metal and/or plastic. Rules are given to a model which govern what that model can do in the game. Just because a Dwarf is 'mounted' on a shield both in fluff and in appearance does not give him the any rule pertaining to Mounted Rules found throughout the BRB.

Heck, my Chaos Dwarf Bull Centaurs and Chaos Centaurs don't look like infantry, but GW says they are. Go figure!

Ganymede
09-04-2007, 04:21
Much better... now you are respecting your opponent's viewpoint.

You can go back to debating with whomever was arguing the counter position now.

DeathlessDraich
09-04-2007, 10:40
Words with specific meanings in the rules e.g. model, missile weapon, flee, save, wheel etc and in this case *mounted*, cannot be ignored and cannot be interpreted to mean something else.

1) The argument that *mounted* in the Dwarf rules could mean something else other than its accepted Warhammer usage, would lead to a total breakdown in the rules if applied to the words above.
An example of this in a fictitious rule: "when the model is hit by a charge" Hit has a specific Warhammer meaning but in this case could mean when it makes contact. - maybe not a good example but illustrates the gist of the principle above.

2) Unfortunately the Dwarf rules uses the word *mounted* in its Warhammer context as well as with a different everday life meaning:
"mounted on a base" - *Mounted* is used as a Non-Warhammer term here and should have been "placed on a base"

"mounted on a shield" - This can only be a Warhammer use of the term *mounted* because a person is not mounted on a shield in real life except possibly in parts of loony London and maybe Krefeld?:p

However the misuse of the term *mounted* in the first statement clouds the issue. It could easily be argued, as intellectawe mentioned, that the word *mounted* has the same mundane non-Warhammer meaning in both statements.

intellectawe
09-04-2007, 13:36
I have no issue with the Lord being "Mounted" on the shield, but the way the word mounted is presented is not concrete to me atleast.

That would be like, I don;t know, if a monster had in its description, "Goblins sometimes fight with poisonous weaponry when on the battlefield". Yet, with no rule for having poison weapons, it would be absurd to give goblins poisonous weaponry during the game.

I am just mad at the wording of rules and fluff in fantasy books. It makes my head asplode sometimes. I have no beef with anyone on here or anything. If the Lord is mounted, then so be it, I don't mind.

Zonq
10-04-2007, 01:23
I think the Dwarf Lord is not mounted.

On page 55 of the BRB, the last paragraph reads as follow:
"Sometimes the same weapon has two different entries, one referring to the use of that weapon made by infantry (and other models on foot), and the other referring to mounted modesl (cavalry and models riding monsters or chariots)" [emphasis mine]
It is the ony definition of "mounted models" that I found in the BRB. So, since the dwarf lord is not cavalry (as defined in page 7) and is not riding a monster or a chariot, he is not mounted.

Now, if I look in the weapon section, I can notice that great weapons give bonuses to 2 kinds of models: mounted models (+1 S) and infantry (+2 S). If I go and read the definition of what is infantry on page 7 of the BRB: "Infantry includes all units of foot troops, be they Goblins, Men, Ogres, Trolls or any other of the myriad Warhammer races fighting on foot" [emphasis mine]
You'll then notice that the Dwarf lord is by no mean "on foot"; he is carried by two shieldbearers. So, he is not infantry. The Dwarf lord is not infantry and is not mounted...he doesn't fit in any of those categories. And remember that nothing in the BRB says that anything that is not mounted is automatically on foot.

In my opinion, since the Dwarf lord is not "mounted" (p.55) nor "infantry" (p.7), he DOESN'T GET ANY BENEFIT FROM HIS GREAT WEAPON!! :evilgrin:

Feel free to destroy my opinion,

Zonq

intellectawe
10-04-2007, 01:37
He is infantry. All models have a category, and infantry is the default for everything. The Lord may not be on foot, but his shield bearers are, and they are their own models, they are not part of the Lord like a horse is part of a Knight.

Ganymede
10-04-2007, 02:06
I think the Dwarf Lord is not mounted.

On page 55 of the BRB, the last paragraph reads as follow:
"Sometimes the same weapon has two different entries, one referring to the use of that weapon made by infantry (and other models on foot), and the other referring to mounted modesl (cavalry and models riding monsters or chariots)" [emphasis mine]
It is the ony definition of "mounted models" that I found in the BRB. So, since the dwarf lord is not cavalry (as defined in page 7) and is not riding a monster or a chariot, he is not mounted.

Now, if I look in the weapon section, I can notice that great weapons give bonuses to 2 kinds of models: mounted models (+1 S) and infantry (+2 S). If I go and read the definition of what is infantry on page 7 of the BRB: "Infantry includes all units of foot troops, be they Goblins, Men, Ogres, Trolls or any other of the myriad Warhammer races fighting on foot" [emphasis mine]
You'll then notice that the Dwarf lord is by no mean "on foot"; he is carried by two shieldbearers. So, he is not infantry. The Dwarf lord is not infantry and is not mounted...he doesn't fit in any of those categories. And remember that nothing in the BRB says that anything that is not mounted is automatically on foot.

In my opinion, since the Dwarf lord is not "mounted" (p.55) nor "infantry" (p.7), he DOESN'T GET ANY BENEFIT FROM HIS GREAT WEAPON!! :evilgrin:

Feel free to destroy my opinion,

Zonq


You forget, a model can be mounted without counting as cavalry, chariot mounted or monster mounted. Take for instance the Slaan. He counts as being mounted, and he has no special notation that reminds us that he is mounted. He just is.

I feel the dwarf shieldborne is similar enough to the slaan that he is treated similarly


Take a look at this FAQ response.


Q. Can a Slann use items that are for ‘models on foot
only’?
A. No. He is not a model on foot!


There is no rules explaination given here, it is as if GW is saying "what are you some sort of headcase, the slann is very clearly not on foot!" Using the same point of view, I'd imagine GW would have a similar stance with the Shieldborne.

Festus
10-04-2007, 07:54
I hate it to quote myself from the first page, though ;)

Anyway: The Shieldbearers are such a special case that it is hard to imagine that they'd get their own mention in the BRB. I think that we can only go by the definition in the Dwarf Book, and there it explicitly is given as *mounted*.
Festus

Vattendroppe
10-04-2007, 08:53
I agree with bjork on this one. Since he doesn't fit into any category at all he's not mounted.

Mordu22
10-04-2007, 14:46
To all those who wish to say that the lord with shield bearers is mounted.
What is the stats of his mount? it seems that every other mount has some sort of stat line for it's movement and attacks and such.

Where is the lords mount represented in any form of stats? all it says is that the General gets two extra attacks nothing of mount attacks.

If a model doesn't have a stat line of anysort how does it move? how should i determine the move of my lord on shield bearers as i don't know how fast its mount is.

Festus
10-04-2007, 15:05
Hi

To all those who wish to say that the lord with shield bearers is mounted.
What is the stats of his mount? it seems that every other mount has some sort of stat line for it's movement and attacks and such.
Nice try to throw a smoke bomb ... :rolleyes:

As an example, I present the statline for a Plaguerider:

6 4 0 4 5 3 3 D6+2 9

Is he/it mounted? Or a Bloodletter on Juggernaught, or Pleasureseekers?

Festus

WillFightForFood
10-04-2007, 15:12
If a model doesn't have a stat line of anysort how does it move? how should i determine the move of my lord on shield bearers as i don't know how fast its mount is.

Perhaps he doesn't. I see no problem with this.


In any case, I'm with Festus. The RAW is tricky here but it appears he is mounted based upon the model and description.

If it's that much of a problem roll a D6 as was suggested earlier.

Bran Dawri
10-04-2007, 22:02
Hi

Nice try to throw a smoke bomb ... :rolleyes:

As an example, I present the statline for a Plaguerider:

6 4 0 4 5 3 3 D6+2 9

Is he/it mounted? Or a Bloodletter on Juggernaught, or Pleasureseekers?

Festus

Hi,

IIRC, Plagueriders, bloodletters on Juggernauts and Pleasureseekers are cavalry, and hence by default count as mounted.
Either that, or they fall under the sam category as warhounds, dire wolves, and their ilk.
So that's comparing apples and pears, my friend. The dwarf lord isn't a cavalry model - he's not US 2.

As I said, this can be argued until both sides are blue in the face, but no clearcut answer will be found - the terminology is too badly defined.
So if your opponent brings it up, roll a dice.

Atrahasis
10-04-2007, 22:37
The dwarf lord isn't a cavalry model - he's not US 2.Neither are Plagueriders, Juggernaughts et al.

TheDarkDaff
11-04-2007, 00:25
The more i see this arguement that the Dwarf lord isn't mounted the more i believe it. I know that you don't need separate stat lines to count as mounted but i am going to take a new tact. Show me where it say the Lord is on foot. Is he on a 20x20 or 25x25 base. Is he standing on the ground. If you can't show me these then i will have to assume he isn't on foot at all so there are no rules that allow him to use a great weapon at all.

Edit: Just for the record this is me from a RAW standpoint.

TheWarSmith
11-04-2007, 01:06
I never remember being on a 20x20 or 25x25 as the guideline for being on foot. Seems to me that ogres are on 40x40 and they're most certainly on foot.

Just trying to get the most clear side of this argument. I'd say he is indeed mounted as I dont' really care what the rulebook says at all on this. Look at the dictionary definition of mounted if you want, and you'll find that it says "serving on horseback or on some special mount, as soldiers or police".

I believe being on a palanquin or shield bearers would count as being mounted.

intellectawe
11-04-2007, 02:53
Infantry can be on ANY base size.

TheDarkDaff
11-04-2007, 06:14
Infantry can be on ANY base size.
Not true but they must also be "on foot" which a guy(dwarf) being carried on a shield is obviously not. He is on shield if you will and i can't find any rules about how you can use a great weapon unless you are on foot or mounted(this is making me want to try saying that my Chaos Lord on steed is standing in his stirrups so he should be on foot too).

edit: I remembered that Infantry have a nice little list of base sizes they can be. 20x20, 25x25, 40x40 & 50x50. at least according to the BRB that is.

Festus
11-04-2007, 06:50
Hi

You misremember: As of p.7, Infantry usually comes on the Bases 20mm, 25mm or 40mm square, but they can be on any base as far as the rules are concerned.

Festus

Bloodknight
11-04-2007, 11:59
Iīd argue that he counts as a monster. The shield is not a cavalry or montrous mount (no own M or wounds value, for example) and characters with a US higher than 1 who are not cavalry or on a monstrous mount count as monsters themselves. I donīt have an english rulebook, so I canot quote properly, but itīs in the character section under "Movement".

TheWarSmith
11-04-2007, 18:16
hahahaha, a dwarven monster. That's AWESOME.

I am curious which table a giant uses when swinging at a dwarf on shields. I'd LOVE to just thump that thing and do 2d6 wounds.

Bloodknight
11-04-2007, 18:21
At least itīs good for a laugh ;).

Chicago Slim
11-04-2007, 18:54
See, I'm tempted to suggest that "on foot" means that the character or trooper is standing on his own two feet (which explains why Centigors are "on foot"), and that "mounted" means that it's not-- but in this case, it still doesn't resolve anything, as the Dwarf lord IS standing on his own two feet, which happen to be resting on a shield, which is transported by the feet of some other troopers.

This is notably different from the Slaan, who is sitting on his bottom, not standing on his feet, so maybe there's an argument to be made for the Dwarf Lord on shield to be different from the Slaan on his palanquin. It's all about the feet, you see...


I think, though, that WarSmith raises a great point: bring a Giant, and tell your Dwarven opponent before the game, "I'll leave it to you to decide: if your Dwarf Lord is mounted, then I'll use the 'Little Stuff' table, but you'll only get +1 strength for using a great weapon. If he's not mounted, you'll get the full +2 strength for using a great weapon, but I roll on the 'Big Stuff' table..."

Taken as a thought experiment, I think it's illuminating in and of itself... Anyway, I don't see Dwarf Lords with great weapons all that often, anyway, since they're pretty expensive to Rune, or something like that (I'm not all up to speed on the new book, and how it changed the Weapon Runes rules). Other than the great weapon rule, is there ANY other reason why it makes a difference if he's Mounted or not?

Crazy Harborc
11-04-2007, 19:11
Okay, okay.......what's the big deal? Can the Dwarves have more than one in a army? Be a nice guy and let the stunties use the guy on a shield AND let him have a GW too.....THEN your opponent OWES you one:evilgrin:

It IS a special deal/toy for ONE army. Use a great weapon while standing on the shield? Why not......then just stay the heck away from the model! OR gangbang the unit it/they are with in HtH.

Zarast38
11-04-2007, 20:19
Ok, I got the dwaven army book (english), BRB of the 6th (french) and 7th(english) edition in front of me, trying to solve some bugs. Can't stunties stop messing things up with their weirdness ???

1) on page 72 of the BRB 7th in the Characters section, Movement headline. It is clear that this dwarf is nothing described there !

2) on page 29 in the army, it state that the model is affected by Look out Sir! and is not condered as a larger target then the other unit members (dwarfs)

So my conclusion rulewise is that there is no conclusion unless faked !

On the others hand, if I go by my logic here is the way I think it should be considered :

1) Use the giant ''little stuff''
2) Can be killing blowed
3) As a vision arc as a monster, and move like them
4) Is noble steed can't be paniked, but can be thrown to the ground (if anything can do it)
5) Got +2 to the great weapon str (the main reason, as I see it, for the +1S of mounted GW is to avoid the speedy S6/7 characters of doom with also a great AS without magical stuff)

Th

WLBjork
11-04-2007, 20:36
2) on page 29 in the army, it state that the model is affected by Look out Sir! and is not condered as a larger target then the other unit members (dwarfs)

Also covered by having a US<5


1) Use the giant ''little stuff''

Sure, don't Giant rules specify 40*40mm base anyway?


2) Can be killing blowed

No, he has US>2


3) As a vision arc as a monster, and move like them

US>1, so yes.


4) Is noble steed can't be paniked, but can be thrown to the ground (if anything can do it)

Don't get your point here?


5) Got +2 to the great weapon str (the main reason, as I see it, for the +1S of mounted GW is to avoid the speedy S6/7 characters of doom with also a great AS without magical stuff)

Partially, but also Page 55 is very clear. Mounted models are cavalry and models riding monsters or chariots.

Vattendroppe
12-04-2007, 07:28
Partially, but also Page 55 is very clear. Mounted models are cavalry and models riding monsters or chariots.

And that is IMO quite good proof that he isn't mounted. Cavalry - nope, two shiedbearers beeing monsters - nope, chariot - nope. Plus, the shieldbearers haven't got ANY kind of charasteristics by themselves, they just add some special rules and armour to the lord itself.

Festus
12-04-2007, 07:45
Hi

It is quite stretch to say that p.55 is very clear. If anything at all, it gives us relevant information for Weapon purposes only.

And I doubt that p.55 includes all mounted models. The Slann and the Daemonic Cavalry are the best examples that everything is *NOT AT ALL* clear...

... so why should we be so narrow in the case of the Shieldbearers???

Festus

Ganymede
12-04-2007, 14:50
How come no one here is working together to come to an agreeable solution? I am sure if everyone poured their resources into discovering the truth as opposed to being right, the rules clarification process would be far more efficient.

Festus
12-04-2007, 14:54
There is hardly an agreeable solution for all, as it is just a basic alternative decision. Is he mounted, or is he not mounted?

We could hold a poll, but that does not make the rules different...
...and as we all know, it is not that much of a problem in an actual game, either.

Festus

Ganymede
12-04-2007, 14:58
I'm not talking about finding the majority opinion, I'm talking about working together as opposed to the adversarial system that is traditionally used here.

Festus
12-04-2007, 14:59
Hi

I know, but how will you do that in a question that allows only two possible answers: A, or not-A?

Festus

vilo
12-04-2007, 15:10
i have just gone and bought the dwarven army book and read the rules for shield bearers umpteen times and couldn't understand where the argument is generated from. as it clearly states that the model is carried and counts as one model for all intensive purposes, the only reason the word mounted is used is to clarify base sizes for anyone wishing to do conversions, also if you check page 7 of the brb then you will notice that they use the same clarification there i.e. infantry are mounted on a 20mm 25mm or 40mm base.

it also never states that hes a monster as to do so would mean he couldn't join units.

imho the shield bearer option was meant to be an add on something to boost his stats and give him something snazzy without destroying the theme of the army

Festus
12-04-2007, 15:31
Would you mind reading the tread the next time before you post?

Everything you've just written has been said already - some things more than a few times. And it doesn't get better or any more true if you repeat it. :rolleyes:

Apart from that.

The Dwarf Army Book says not only mounted in the context you give, but you can read it for yourself in the quote I gave on the very first page of this thread... if you know how to find this :eyebrows:
If not: Here you go: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1448048&postcount=4

Festus

vilo
12-04-2007, 16:24
for your information i have read all the posts on a thread and all i was merely doing was giving my opinion on the the rule in question ;-),

as for you quote

Hi

The Dwarf book says on p.29:

"The shieldbearers add +2 Armour Save of the character ... mounted on the shield."

Emphasis mine.

Festus

it is in the middle of the rules for the shield bearer and before that it quite clearly states the he is carried, then mounted on base size then explanation of whom and why he gets the two plus save, this is not for determining if he is mounted like cavalry or riding a monster or is one himself.

therefore it is superfluous to the argument of whether if said dwarf is mounted.

Ganymede
12-04-2007, 22:44
Hi

I know, but how will you do that in a question that allows only two possible answers: A, or not-A?

Festus

Have everyone gather evidence that helps form a conclusion in either way, compile it into one post, then allow viewers to explain how they use the information to arrive at a conclusion.

intellectawe
13-04-2007, 00:04
The only "fact" people have, rules wise, is that the word mounted is used in the dwarf lord description during the sentence for an armor save. The word mounted is a descriptor, which has nothing to do with his status as being mounted.

The very first paragraph under shield bearers deals with how the lord is situated on the shield, and the word mounted never appears. The Lord is Carried instead of being "Mounted".

So what we have is...

CON Mounted - under the paragraph/sentence for how the model is situated on the shield, the Lord is considered to be "carried" at best.

PRO Mounted - under the sentence for the lords armor save, the word mounted is used as a description as to WHY he gets a 2+ save. Nothing more.

So thats what I pose. When talking about his mounted status, the book says nothing of the sort. When talking about his armor save, the word mounted is used.

Seems quite clear to me that there is no 'proof' that he is Mounted at all, except for the model, but the model reflects the rules, not the other way around.

Yellow Commissar
13-04-2007, 03:52
Hello. I've just read the complete thread. I think that, in this case, "mounted" means "mounted".

The quote that describes him as mounted tells me that he is, indeed, mounted. I'm not buying any of the arguments about "mounted" not meaning "Mounted", though the point brought up about models being "mounted" on thier bases makes me wonder. :confused:

GodHead
13-04-2007, 04:12
What if the King is in his room, with an impressive bust mounted over the bed, busy mounting his queen and as his excitement began to mount his thane burst in shouting "there's goblins on Mount Gunbad!" so the King placed his spying glass on a mount to view the Mount, replying "We'll mount an attack on the Mount!"

As he turned to leave he fell and hit his head against the wall and a large gem fell out of the mount on his crown and as he rose he re-mounted it. Unlike the Queen.

Ganymede
13-04-2007, 05:08
Seems quite clear to me that there is no 'proof' that he is Mounted at all, except for the model, but the model reflects the rules, not the other way around.

In order to add to the discussion, I will reiterate that I posted a quote from the lizardmen faq that stated the slann is mounted. What is important here is that little in the slaan rules indicates that it is mounted besides a passing mention that he is mounted on the palanquin. Despite this lack of rules, GW felt it fitting to basically call us retards for assuming that it was a model on foot. They even went so far as to add an exclaimation point in their answer in order to drive the point home. Naturally, their basis for such an answer was not formed around an unequivocal portion of the slann's rules, but was based on a cursory glance of the model.

Wouldn't it stand to reason that the shieldborne, a unique but decidedly similar creature would follow the same vein?

sulla
13-04-2007, 06:15
I'm leaning towards him being mounted if only because, if he's not mounted then he should get the hand weapon and shield bonus to armour save for being on foot which just doesn't seem right.

Vattendroppe
13-04-2007, 09:10
I'm leaning towards him being mounted if only because, if he's not mounted then he should get the hand weapon and shield bonus to armour save for being on foot which just doesn't seem right.

But on the other hand it seems quite wrong that a dwarf shouldn't get his +2 strength on a charge with a move of increadible 3''.

And speaking of which, aren't dwarfs supposed to have no mounted models?


What if the King is in his room, with an impressive bust mounted over the bed, busy mounting his queen and as his excitement began to mount his thane burst in shouting "there's goblins on Mount Gunbad!" so the King placed his spying glass on a mount to view the Mount, replying "We'll mount an attack on the Mount!"

As he turned to leave he fell and hit his head against the wall and a large gem fell out of the mount on his crown and as he rose he re-mounted it. Unlike the Queen.

Haha, I found this quite funny! :D

Crazy Harborc
14-04-2007, 00:10
Let's see now......that dwarf lord is standing on a shield. Is he sitting on either shieldbearers shoulders? Is he wrapping his legs around the shields as he would a real pony, horse, wolf, boar, mount?

Masque
14-04-2007, 00:41
If 'standing' vs 'sitting' was the way to differentiate 'on foot' vs 'mounted' then anyone on a chariot would be 'on foot'.

Rodman49
14-04-2007, 00:50
I would say the following . . .

1. For weapon use he counts as mounted: IE no hand weapon shield bonus, only +1 from GW, no two hand weapons, etc.
2. Against enemy spells/weapons he counts as on foot

Reasoning
1. Its difficult to fight while standing on a freaking shield held by two other people.
2. Lore of Beasts spells and such that tend to affect mounts like horses obviously would not affect him and his shieldbearers being Dwarves not mounts.

Ward.
14-04-2007, 01:10
A quick question, would being mounted affect his pursuit distance at all or randomization of hits?, it wasn't until i actually though about it that it made me think.

I think you could compare it to greaseus goldtooth, the ogre kingdoms special character (i think i haven't read it recently, but the model looks "similar") .

@ intellectawe - a discriptor would have something to do with his status of being mounted.

@ godhead - I'd have to agree with the different interpretation's of mounted, but they all do still mean the same thing, in different situations.

GodHead
14-04-2007, 01:58
No they don't! They all kind of refer in a sense to "up" in some vague way, but they don't mean the same thing at all, heck they are used as different language elements. I couldn't find a way to work in mounting a specimen for a microscope.

sulla
14-04-2007, 05:09
But on the other hand it seems quite wrong that a dwarf shouldn't get his +2 strength on a charge with a move of increadible 3''.


Well, It would be very impressive if he could swing a mighty great axe on top of a little shield without overbalancing. But that's injecting reality into a toy soldier game, which is rarely useful.

Let's just say the rules for the shield slipped through the cracks. It probably wasn't the intention of the writers to make the lord count as mounted but neither was it their intention to give him an armour bonus and then an extra armour bonus for hw&shield on foot as well. In light of that, it's usually a safe bet to go with the harshest ruling.

intellectawe
14-04-2007, 05:14
@ intellectawe - a discriptor would have something to do with his status of being mounted.

You are right, and according to the rules, the descriptor for him and the shield is "carried on" in the very first paragraph that is only concerned with HOW a lord is mounted on a shield.

A Descriptor for what armor save the lord gets uses the word mounted, but I fail to see how, while giving the rules for one thing (the armor save the lord gets for being mounted on a shield) has anything to do with his status as being a mounted model for mounted purposes.

This was already established under the very first paragraph, which people seem to consistently seem to want to skip over and pay no attention to.

Festus
14-04-2007, 07:50
Hi

Why do you discuss the Armour Save of the shieldborne Lord at all, as this is explicitly given in the Rules. The point of the debate is neither which Armour Save he gets, nor whether he counts as riding a Monster, Chariot, or is Cavalry, nor what his M-value is.

The simple point is to decide whether he is mounted or not.

This can only influence the way weapons work for him (ie. GW +1/+2 S, Parry bonus, etc.)

And the rules for Shieldbearers give the Dwarf as being *carried on* a shield and as being *mounted* explicitly. I don't actually see a point to argue apart from it not being included in one of the lists describing, which models are mounted. As always, GW is not consistent with its examples and lists, so I wouldn't bother too much.

If the Slaan is mounted, who is another Character with Special Rules, then the Dwarf on a Plate is surely mounted as well.

But this has all been said already, multiple times. There are no more Arguments to add, just Strawmen and Smoke Bombs, and I think that clinging to the fact that the Dwarf stands on his Shield/Mount is clinging to straws.

I for one am out, my mind has been set, and I know the answer. It may or may not be what you lot think or even like, but I will sleep soundly in this knowledge ;)

Festus

eldrak
14-04-2007, 07:58
Well, It would be very impressive if he could swing a mighty great axe on top of a little shield without overbalancing. But that's injecting reality into a toy soldier game, which is rarely useful.

But why should if prevent him from using two hand weapons (IF he could pick that option).

Mounted does not always mean mounted, check how many times it is used on page 7.

intellectawe
14-04-2007, 16:04
Hi Hello


Why do you discuss the Armour Save of the shieldborne Lord at all?

Because the only proof you have that a Lord is mounted is in a sentence where the Lord isn't even the subject of said sentence. The sentence is about the Shieldbearers and the armor save THEY give to the Lord. The Lord being mounted has no bearing in this sentence except as fluff to why he gets that save.



And the rules for Shieldbearers give the Dwarf as being *carried on* a shield and as being *mounted* explicitly. I don't actually see a point to argue apart from it not being included in one of the lists describing, which models are mounted. As always, GW is not consistent with its examples and lists, so I wouldn't bother too much.

Wouldn't bother too much how? That you choose to ignore the paragraph DEALING with the Lord and it's "mounted" status which doesn't even use the word mounted anywhere?


If the Slaan is mounted, who is another Character with Special Rules, then the Dwarf on a Plate is surely mounted as well.

I don't see how rules for onr race effect another race unless the rules specifically say so. What works for Slann has nothing to do with the Dwarves.


But this has all been said already, multiple times. There are no more Arguments to add, just Strawmen and Smoke Bombs, and I think that clinging to the fact that the Dwarf stands on his Shield/Mount is clinging to straws.

And the fact that there is no rule stating he is mounted yet claiming he is based on the model is clinging to water. No where in his rules is he forbidden from using weapon combinations for full effect.


I for one am out, my mind has been set, and I know the answer. It may or may not be what you lot think or even like, but I will sleep soundly in this knowledge

Until you play against a player using this Lord...

Intellectawe

Festus
14-04-2007, 22:58
Hi

We already had this discussion and came o a different conclusion - and I took a different stance then as I take now, as I have put a bit of thought into it.

Feel free to reread the older thread and tell us what you think of the issue in its light...

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48909&page=6

And the way it will be played in an actual in-game situation is a different matter entirely: If my oponent whines enough, I'll let him do all kinds of things not in the rules, even going back in the sequence in phases. So - now?

Festus

ZomboCom
15-04-2007, 00:21
He is blatantly, blatantly mounted.

GodHead
15-04-2007, 02:02
You blatantly blatantly misspelled blatantly.

Get Firefox, it spell-checks for you.

N1AK
17-07-2007, 10:45
Festus: My one problem with your basis is that "mounted" is not used in any rule it is only used in a description. Saying that his description gives him rules, is as wrong as those people who argue their Ushabati are carrying great weapons because they hold the blade with two hands on the model.

To me a Dwarf Lord starts as a infantry model, only if an upgrade makes him something else does he stop being an infantry model. As the shieldbearers do not state as a rule that he is mounted, none of the rules in the BRB make him mounted, and any guesses at GW's intent are just that I don't believe he should be treated as mounted.

- - -
In actual game terms I would like to say I am unbiased, but as I field a Dwarf Lord on Shieldbearers I don't know how much that claim is worth.

If I was playing Dwarves I would play it as my opponent requests, basically because anyone who gives a Lord a GW and Shieldbearers obviously doesn't think he counts as mounted (as they could make much better magic hand weapons). I would also state that I believe my Lord does not count as mounted, and if they are unhappy with that request a dice off as I think it is unsporting to pull a dubious rule interpretation mid-game to nerf someones models.

For example I field my Shield Lord with GW MRoKraggTG, RoSnorriSpangelhelm, RoFury weighing in at 80 points and not allowing me to use a shield. If he was mounted this would give me: +1str +1to hit and +1at

If I had planned around him counting as mounted he would become:
Shield Lord, Shield, HW with RoF, RoSnorriS & Ro+1str, then I get +1str +1to hit and +1at, and would get the benefit of having a shield and hit in iniative order and spend less points.

Festus
17-07-2007, 11:30
N1AK - Do you know what Threadomancy is?

If not, consult the FAQ, which can be found here: http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_posting_guidelines


26 - Thread Necromancy: When replying to a thread please take a look at the date of the last post of said thread first (especially if you are using the 'new posts' feature). If it's already a few weeks old, it's usually better to let the thread rest.If a post disappears off of the front page of a subforum it's usually best left alone too as most of the times that's an indication that the subject has gone as far as it can.
Only add a post to a(n) (older) thread if you have something useful to add and if the point you are going to make wasn't made already.

N1AK
17-07-2007, 11:39
I did hesitate before posting in this thread, as I found it by searching rather than by browsing I wasn't sure how old it was, (and by a quirk of hiding in plain view I couldn't see the date of last post) which I now am aware is at the very top left of each post :-|

Obviously whether or not or not I pass on the second criteria is subjective, but it was a new point (the fact that people would only give a Shieldbearer Lord a GW is they thought he wasn't mounted) and I think it is useful to add as the debate had not been resolved to most participants satisfaction.
Of course I could of started a new thread asking the same question, only to be pointed here, at which point I would have to say that this thread didn't actually come to a conclusion, but that to me would be a rather round the houses way of getting here.

Festus
17-07-2007, 12:06
Hi

The debate will not be resolved anytime soon, obviously.

To me a Dwarf Lord starts as a infantry model, only if an upgrade makes him something else does he stop being an infantry model.


He is mounted, but he is not Mounted.


He isn't a monster, he isn't anything really but infantry. You would need a rule that gives him Mounted besides a word in his fluff description.


He is infantry. All models have a category, and infantry is the default for everything. The Lord may not be on foot, but his shield bearers are, and they are their own models, they are not part of the Lord like a horse is part of a Knight.

You mean like this new point... :angel:

well, anyway... as this thread has all the arguments pro&con, I see no further need to linger here.

Festus

N1AK
17-07-2007, 12:30
Yes obviously I can see how a new point is only a new point if you don't risk infering anything else that may of been said before within 8 nautical miles :rolleyes:

I'm not quite sure how I could of emphasised the new point more clearly than putting it within brackets straight afterwards... but my apologies if that required a trying leap of logic.

Festus
17-07-2007, 12:52
Funny how the question of weapons rules (i.e. whether a GW will provide +1S or +2S and whether he can make use of an additional handweapon, etc.) is the only concernable difference solved by his cateogorisation as *mounted*, *infantry*, or *anythig, really* ... :eyebrows:

And it has been addressed more than a couple of times in this thread as well (... #42, #50, #51, #52, #69, #72, #75 to name just a few).

I think it is my turn to roll eyes
:rolleyes:

N1AK
17-07-2007, 13:27
Seems you found a further need...

I made the point that from a gamers perspective, a person sticking a Dwarf Lord on Shieldbearers and using it as though it is not a mount either:
1/ Doesn't believe his Lord is mounted, in which case trying to argue otherwise based on a bit of description so that you can nerf his character is poor sportmanship.
2/ Believes his Lord should be counted as mounted, but is keeping it secret so that he can abuse what he believes to be a rule glitch. If your sure this is the case, and also believe he is mounted then go nuts.

It's a new point, and fortunatly anyone who isn't stubborn is more than capable of working it out. Which leaves me wondering why I've persisted in trying to justify it to the minority who wouldn't accept it, if it hit them in the face.

On which note it is I who now finds no further need to linger, unless someone else feels like weighing in regarding the rules question at hand.

Ward.
17-07-2007, 13:57
How coincidental is it that festus was the one to see N1AK first, :).
(just an observation, and no that's not a question, it's an Australian thing.)

@N1AK: I think (only think, i haven't read threw this thread in a while) that some of the dispute was with the the wording of the rule that defines what a mounted model is.

momfreeek
17-07-2007, 19:47
He is blatantly, blatantly mounted.
absolutely

Surely the fact that he is mounted on a shield is quite conclusive. I agree that you can't use the wording in the description as law, but surely the fact that the word 'mounted' fits aptly is the point.

Arguing that he is described as being 'carried' doesn't contradict the fact that he is mounted, just as a character can be 'riding' in a chariot while at the same time being 'mounted' on said chariot.

N1AK
17-07-2007, 21:37
Ward: Absolutely and the wording is "They are mounted on a 40mm wide by 20mm deep base. The shieldbearers add 2 to the armour save of the character mounted on the shield".
Which is part of the description of the Shieldbearers on p29 of the Dwarf army book. Obviously the word "mounted" is used, but it is also used one sentence earlier regarding the fact models are placed on the base. It is a big extrapolation to say that use of an ambiguous word in a description can define the rules for a model.

- - -
momfreeek: I'm not (and couldn't) say you are wrong, but I certainly don't see it as that concrete.

From a RAW perspective I believe their is no RULE that states the model is mounted.

From a realism point of view I don't see why he should count as mounted, at the most basic level he is being carried standing on a large stable platform being carried by two well trained and intelligent Dwarves, not sat atop a warhorse.
Although obviously you could argue the other way that his movement is limited, he is still on a moving surface etc.

My main point is, if your opponent is using a Shieldbearer Lord and doesn't think he counts as mounted (as everyone I have ever met in Real Life believes) then forcing him to count him as mounted, and thus weaken his Lord is bad sportsmanship (as he would probably designed his army differently).

- - -
Also going through Army Book Wood Elves and O&G they both do something specific when mounting something, under their options they have a specific bullet point for steeds:

Orc Warboss: "May ride a Boar, a Wyvern, or may ride in an Orc Boar chariot..."

Wood Elf Highborn: "May ride either a Elven Steed, a Great Eagle or a Forest Dragon".

Dwarves on the other hand: "May have an oath stone, or if the Lord is the army's general he may be carried into battle by Shieldbearers".

Here, again the army book makes no attempt to imply the Dwarf Lord is "mounted" as per the cavalry/chariot etc rules.

I'm not 100% sure, or even 80% sure that I am right, I just think it's a big leap to force your opponent to treat a model a mounted based on no rule but instead a badly worded description.

Muzzle
17-07-2007, 22:15
Shh! This argument has already proven to be without solution, at least for now, and I am busily rewriting some army lists to go along with Festus' theory that anything written in the description of an army can be interpreted as a rule...

;) Thanks Festus!

momfreeek
17-07-2007, 22:20
How about this theory:

Anything not specifically written down unambiguously in the rulebook can be interpretted however you like regardless of whether the problem has an obvious correct solution or not.

Muzzle
17-07-2007, 22:26
It's called a joke, I am sure you have heard of em... :rolleyes:


How about this theory:

Anything not specifically written down unambiguously in the rulebook can be interpretted however you like...

As for this part of your statement, that seems to be exactly what has been going on in 40k and Fantasy for years, you have read these forums yes?

As for the "Perfectly Obvious" part, come on, this is GW, we both know better. :D

momfreeek
17-07-2007, 22:31
It's called a joke, I am sure you have heard of em... :rolleyes:
it seemed very pointed to me

N1AK
17-07-2007, 22:35
My personal favourite on the description as rules front is Orion Hawk's Talon:

"This is an immense and powerful Longbow that Orion uses to slaughter any foe that flees before his wrath".

As he causes terror I take this to mean anything flees due to a terror test he causes is destroyed... automatically ^_^ GW didn't state it as a rule but if they didn't mean this why would they write it, right?

Muzzle
17-07-2007, 22:36
Uh oh, I have created Monsters! :cool:

Muzzle
17-07-2007, 22:42
it seemed very pointed to me

Had I wanted to be pointed, I would have stated that in the description of a Dwarf Lord it explicitly (this word is used far too often on these forums, and I thought I would join in) states that Lords and Thanes have "finely crafted armour and rune-inscribed axes" and I am trying to figure out what free runes he has...

No wait, still joking...

It's so hard to be serious on these forums! :angel: