PDA

View Full Version : Ironback boar



Urgat
01-08-2007, 11:46
The thread about the ironback boar and Vaul's unmaking made me thinking. People claim it is magically animated (it's in the magic items section after all, so it could make sense), so, does it make magic attacks?

Lord Malorne
01-08-2007, 11:47
i'd say yes much like the dwarves runes!

EvC
01-08-2007, 12:20
I asked a similar question on the enchanted boots, the answer was a resounding no...

lparigi34
01-08-2007, 12:26
So IMO logics can be wierd... Why not? If the Ironback Boar is considered Magic (actually it IS a magic item) and in a simmilar thread about the Attack enhancing spells it was argued that those attacks were also magical, ten how comes Ironback Boar attacks aren't?

JackBurton01
01-08-2007, 13:22
I agree either its magic or its not. If vauls unmaking effects the boar then i would say that the atacks are magic same for the boots for theat matter.

Steeve
01-08-2007, 14:23
It's an enchanted item, or magic item, (O&G armybook pg. 42 first paragraph). So long as its magic is not negated, it attacks magically, unless it can still be used in its negated state, in which case its just whatever it says it is.

As I see it there are two lines of reasoning here:

1.) The Ironback Boar is a boar first, with magic on top that gives it an additonal D3 S5 impact hits on charge. Negate the magic and you loose the D3 additional impact hits.

The proof of this, is in the assumption of the meaning of the beginning of its description;

"Boar. When charging, this steed does D3 Strength 5 impact hits in addition to its normal attacks.". Just as "Shield." in the Spiteful Shields description means its a shield and "Spear." in Porko's Pigstikka's description means its a spear.

2.) The Ironback Boar is a magically animated machine that has all the characteristics of a boar as well as D3 additional impact hits on charge.
Negate the magic and you are left with a lifeless machine.
The proof is in the italic font description and its location in Shinystuff as an Enchanted item. My assumption as to the meaning of Boar, Spear, or Shield, is that they have specific additional properties that need to be specified;
Boar. O&G Armybook pg.19 (Boar Stat's), Tusker charge and Thick-Skinned.
Spear. BRB Pg. 56
Shield. BRB Pg. 30

Negate magic in;
Porko's Pigstikka: you are left with a regular spear.
Spiteful Shield: you are left with a regular shield.
Ironback Boar: you are left with a regular unpowered mechanical boar. (unless it is assumed the boar is powered in some other way than magical OR that it is not mechanical at all)

warlord hack'a
01-08-2007, 16:02
so what do you expect a character on ironback boar to do whn it's boar is made inanimate? Can it dismout then? Or do you expect it to stay on top of the not moving boar, therby making the character completely useless?

Steeve
01-08-2007, 17:13
If I'm right,... then they are on foot.
I can't imagine a character staying on an unmoving mount, they would abandon it, and keep fighting.

Malorian
01-08-2007, 18:03
I think the answer lies from attcking this from the other side. Look at what it says from what you are gonig to use it against. Does the army book say their ward (or whatever) is ignored by magical weapons or magical attacks.

The boar is not a magical weapon, although if is say magical attacks, then the boar and the boots would work.

Urgat
02-08-2007, 02:07
I asked a similar question on the enchanted boots, the answer was a resounding no...

Not the same though, the boots add an attack to the profile, they are not actually used for attacking, even tho I could very well picture the orc kicking people left and right :D (but then it would be like the lizardmen bite, that would be an unmodifiable attack, no bonus on it if you have a great weapon or whatnot). The boar is a thing that actually attacks.

EvC
02-08-2007, 09:45
But is the boar used to attack, technically, or does it simply grant the attacker an extra boar-statted attack with impact hits?

Oh god I feel 4% stupider for having to ask such a question.

Urgat
02-08-2007, 10:35
The wording is pretty clear: "when charging, this steed does D3 [...] hits in addition to its normal attacks".

Now question number two: does frenesy transfers to it? Just though of it because it says "its normal attacks", btw, was about to say "like boars have multiple attacks", and remembered about savage orcs.

Steeve
02-08-2007, 12:20
Now question number two: does frenesy transfers to it? Just though of it because it says "its normal attacks", btw, was about to say "like boars have multiple attacks", and remembered about savage orcs.

I would say yes.
The Ironback is not listed as being immune to psychology.
Boars are not listed as immune to psychology. (In this case its a machine.:D)
Frenzy effects both the rider and and thier steeds. BRB, pg.52, FRENZY, end of first paragraph.

In that vein,... what about "Tusker Charge", which confers +2 Strength on the charge. That could mean it's special ability goes to D3 Strength 7 ... :p

DeathlessDraich
02-08-2007, 12:35
Now question number two: does frenesy transfers to it? Just though of it because it says "its normal attacks", btw, was about to say "like boars have multiple attacks", and remembered about savage orcs.

Ah, good a new question.

E.g Titillating delusion is cast on the Orc unit with a character with the Iron back Boar.

The short answer, is yes, the steed (Boar) will be Frenzied.

Except for Chaos knights, steeds are Frenzied too - FAQ plus the Chapter on Characters.

Urgat
02-08-2007, 13:56
I would say yes.
The Ironback is not listed as being immune to psychology.
Boars are not listed as immune to psychology. (In this case its a machine.:D)
Frenzy effects both the rider and and thier steeds. BRB, pg.52, FRENZY, end of first paragraph.

In that vein,... what about "Tusker Charge", which confers +2 Strength on the charge. That could mean it's special ability goes to D3 Strength 7 ... :p

Nah, the tusker charge rule is added to the attacks on the profile (which is that of a regular boar). The D3 hits are a bonus distinct from any profile attack. I know you were joking, but still, I wanted to point it out :)

Steeve
02-08-2007, 15:40
Nah, the tusker charge rule is added to the attacks on the profile (which is that of a regular boar). The D3 hits are a bonus distinct from any profile attack. I know you were joking, but still, I wanted to point it out :)

Yeah, sorry about that, wrong venue, this kind of humor only serves to confuse things.

I just couldn't resist. <weak smile>

DaBrode
02-08-2007, 20:41
As I see it there are two lines of reasoning here:

1.) The Ironback Boar is a boar first, with magic on top that gives it an additonal D3 S5 impact hits on charge. Negate the magic and you loose the D3 additional impact hits.

The proof of this, is in the assumption of the meaning of the beginning of its description;

"Boar. When charging, this steed does D3 Strength 5 impact hits in addition to its normal attacks.". Just as "Shield." in the Spiteful Shields description means its a shield and "Spear." in Porko's Pigstikka's description means its a spear.



If I'm right,... then they are on foot.
I can't imagine a character staying on an unmoving mount, they would abandon it, and keep fighting.


By your own definition it would become "just a boar" and therefore act as just a boar. So..you are wrong because...well you said so.

Steeve
02-08-2007, 21:01
By your own definition it would become "just a boar" and therefore act as just a boar. So..you are wrong because...well you said so.

:confused:....:D your joking

Just in case not, you quoted the first of the two lines of reasoning I percieved to be at the core of the issue. Mine happens to be the second, that was not in your qoute.

DaBrode
02-08-2007, 21:09
... your joking

Just in case not, you quoted the first of the two lines of reasoning I percieved to be at the core of the issue. Mine happens to be the second, that was not in your qoute.

Yeah, but then you added the bit about a character being on foot because a magicless mechanical boar is simply dead weight. I'm the one that should be posting the :wtf::confused::wtf: not you. ;)

Steeve
02-08-2007, 21:20
Heh, heh,...I play O&G, I'm stung by this too! :D

sulla
03-08-2007, 05:57
Except for Chaos knights, steeds are Frenzied too - FAQ plus the Chapter on Characters.

Well, you could always cast titillating delusions on those khorne knights and then the steeds would get frenzy too...

Urgat
03-08-2007, 11:47
her... isn't titillating delusions a Slaanesh spell? I don't remember much about how marks work, are you even allowed to have a slaanesh sorcerer and khorne chaos knights in the same army?

Atrahasis
03-08-2007, 12:36
her... isn't titillating delusions a Slaanesh spell? I don't remember much about how marks work, are you even allowed to have a slaanesh sorcerer and khorne chaos knights in the same army?

Yes, provided the General is Undivided.

Yellow Commissar
04-08-2007, 22:56
I believe the Ironback Boar's attacks are magical. It is a Magic item, after all. :rolleyes:

WLBjork
05-08-2007, 08:33
Just because it's a Magic Item it doesn't mean that it does magical attacks. As others have said, the Kicking Boots give +1A, but that is only magical if the bearer carries a magic weapon.

It's not clearly stated either way, the only difference I am aware of is that it does impact hits from sheer bulk compared to a normal boar.

You'd have to resolve this with your opponent. Personally, I'd currently come down on the side of them being normal attacks (but I'll be looking in the O&G book later).

Steeve
05-08-2007, 12:57
Just because it's a Magic Item it doesn't mean that it does magical attacks. As others have said, the Kicking Boots give +1A, but that is only magical if the bearer carries a magic weapon.
.

If you are referring to "Bigged's Kickin' Boots" then there is no need to have a magic weapon to benefit from them.
O&G Armybook, pg.44 "Grants the wearer +1 Attack on his profile."
Thats it, nothing else for a description.

Ninsaneja
05-08-2007, 13:23
If you are referring to "Bigged's Kickin' Boots" then there is no need to have a magic weapon to benefit from them.
O&G Armybook, pg.44 "Grants the wearer +1 Attack on his profile."
Thats it, nothing else for a description.

Yes, but the attack isn't magical unless they use a magic weapon as well, which was the point of the post. Bigged's Boots are the way they are so the extra attack can benefit from weapon rules, unlike the Maiming Shield.

Steeve
06-08-2007, 11:03
Yes, but the attack isn't magical unless they use a magic weapon as well, which was the point of the post. Bigged's Boots are the way they are so the extra attack can benefit from weapon rules, unlike the Maiming Shield.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.

Are you thinking the attack is not magical because it is an attack that would be part of the wearer's profile without the boots?
Put another way, the boots only provide one extra attack of the type the wearer already has?. therefor making it a nonmagical attack.

Urgat
06-08-2007, 12:30
Yes, but the attack isn't magical unless they use a magic weapon as well, which was the point of the post. Bigged's Boots are the way they are so the extra attack can benefit from weapon rules, unlike the Maiming Shield.

But the kickin boots clearly add an attack to the character's profile. The ironback boar has its own rules, and its own attack, like a magic weapon would. Since it is in the magic section, that nothing states otherwise and all the replies I got there go in that way and are quite sensible, I assume it has magical attacks. And it gets frenesy too since it is a mount.
On the other hand, I assume the other thread about Vaul's unlmaking to be valid in the sense that since it is a magic item, after all, if it was to be cancelled, it just won't work anymore. A boar that doesn't work anymore is "not" a walking boar, and therefore the character would end up on foot.
I'm not saying that it IS the correct reading, but it does seem correct to me, and that is how I will play it in my circle of players. In any regard, I think the discussin here was sensible and the conclusions have reached are acceptable and in no way bending the rules, so I consider the problem resolved on my end :)

Ninsaneja
06-08-2007, 23:32
@Urgat: I didn't say anything about the boar. I agree that the boar has magical attacks.
@Steeve: The boots provide one extra attack of whatever type the character is using. To give an example, if he had a halberd, it would be a non-magical halberd attack, where if he had a sword of might, it would be a magical Sword of Might attack.

Urgat
07-08-2007, 00:17
Woops, I meant to quote WLBjork, sorry :p

warlord hack'a
25-08-2007, 11:26
but wait a minute, it's a mechanical boar, nothing says the mechanics are driven by magic.. Yes it is in the magic items section (where else could the makers put it?) but it's mechanical (says so in the description), so I am not convinced that cancelling it's magic will stop the boar from moving. Also, the only circumstance in which characters can dismount is when their mount dies, now with normal cavalry mounts this never happens, so characters on normal cavalry mounts can never dismount, and now all of a sudden they can? I'm confused and unconvinced..

Atrahasis
25-08-2007, 12:57
but wait a minute, it's a mechanical boar, nothing says the mechanics are driven by magic.. Yes it is in the magic items section
The very fact it is in the magic items section means it is magical.


(where else could the makers put it?)As an equipment option like any other mount?

Raga
29-08-2007, 22:19
On this subject - can you give this to a character riding in a chariot and increase the stats of one of the boars pulling the chariot? Or would one assume that the he is mounted on the boar?

Worth a try ;)

Shimmergloom
29-08-2007, 22:42
it's not worth a try. A character can only ride one mount.

Both the item and a chariot are mounts.

Atrahasis
30-08-2007, 00:14
A character can only ride one mount.

Quotation?

Shimmergloom
30-08-2007, 02:15
Every army book that exists that has mounts tells you what you can ride. None say you can ride more than one. All say the word OR. Not AND.

WLBjork
30-08-2007, 08:31
Fine, except that in this case one is chosen from the steeds and one from magic items.

So bizarely, nothing actually prevents it!

warlord hack'a
30-08-2007, 08:41
yes it does: the ironback boar is a magic steed but a steed nonetheless. A character can select it to ride, but nowhere it is mentioned that he can hitch it on to the chariot. And besides, you can not replace steeds pulling chariots, not mentioned anywhere that you can do this..

So instead of trying to create confusion and contadicition in rules that are neither let's focus on clearing up the confusion in the parts of the rules that are ;-).

Atrahasis
30-08-2007, 09:11
You wouldn't be able to hitch it to the chariot, but he could ride it while also riding the chariot.

Urgat
30-08-2007, 09:21
Then he'd have to charge out of the charriot to gain the benefit of the boar :p
This is all being really silly, no? :p

Atrahasis
30-08-2007, 09:48
Why would he have to charge out of the chariot to get the boars benefits?

Kazadrim
30-08-2007, 10:50
I do not think the ironback boar makes magical attacks : it's an enchanted item not a magic weapon ... and it does D3 strength 5 impact hits, and not D3 strength 5 magical hits.
It's the same with the bigged's kickin' booots which add 1 attack which are magic IF the caracter has a magic weapon.

Does Vaul's unmaking destroy a enchanted item ? (I do not have the High elves book)
If it does, the character loses its boar and keeps fighting on foot
If it negates the magical capacity of an enchanted item, then the ironback boar becomes just a boar ... but not a dead boar.

Urgat
30-08-2007, 14:13
Why would he have to charge out of the chariot to get the boars benefits?

Come on, he doesn't get to get onboard in the first place:
It's in the ironback boar rules: "boar". it's the fist rule of the item.
Now I go to the boar rules, and it's a mount. Now if you can prove to me that nothing prevents a mounted character to get in a charriot (or any other mount), well, sure, I'll have my ironback boar riding character on a wyvern.

Kazadrim: enchanted items are magic items. It's a magic item that has its own attacks (as stated, it doesn't change the basic profile of the orc), so it's a magic item attacking. Therefore, they're magic attacks.

Atrahasis
30-08-2007, 14:22
There's no rule that prevents multiple mounts. Usually it is prevented by the word "or" in the character's equipment options, but as the Ironback is a magic item, there's no "or" to limit it.

warlord hack'a
30-08-2007, 18:53
there is no rule preventing multiple mounts as it is very clear that you can have only one mount. The rulebook is there to give rules on what is, not on all the other options that are not.
E.g. in the rulebook under spears, it only says: fight in 2 ranks. Nowhere does it mention that it uses two hands. So why can we not use a hand weapon in one hand and the spear in the other? Because that is not the way spears work, simple as that. There is no rule saying that we are not allowed to take 2 spears, does that mean that we can take two spears? No it means it does not say you can not take two spears as it is natural to take only one spear.

And as far as the ' it's a magic item so it can be taken next to a normal mount' argument, nonsense. It says it is a boar, so this means it is a boar and follows all the normal rules for a boar. In addition, it has something extra, being impact hits. You have to take it as a mount as that is the only way a character is allowed to purchase a boar, not as a pet on a leash.

Atrahasis
30-08-2007, 19:01
there is no rule preventing multiple mounts as it is very clear that you can have only one mount.How is it very clear?


The rulebook is there to give rules on what is, not on all the other options that are not. Yes, and the rules say an orc can ride a boar, a chariot, or a wyvern, and that he can carry up to 100 points of magic items.

He has permission to ride one of those three mounts AND take a magic item. Nothing prevents that magic item from being a mount.


E.g. in the rulebook under spears, it only says: fight in 2 ranks. Nowhere does it mention that it uses two hands. So why can we not use a hand weapon in one hand and the spear in the other? Because that is not the way spears work, simple as that.Very true, but completely irrelevant.


There is no rule saying that we are not allowed to take 2 spears, does that mean that we can take two spears? No it means it does not say you can not take two spears as it is natural to take only one spear. No, the reason we can only carry one spear is that the rules only give permission to carry one spear. It has nothing to do with what is "natural".


And as far as the ' it's a magic item so it can be taken next to a normal mount' argument, nonsense. It says it is a boar, so this means it is a boar and follows all the normal rules for a boar.It costs 16 points for an Orc Big Boss to take it?


In addition, it has something extra, being impact hits. You have to take it as a mount as that is the only way a character is allowed to purchase a boar, not as a pet on a leash.
Again, it is being taken as a mount. However, there is nothing to prevent a character having two mounts in this instance.

ZeroTwentythree
30-08-2007, 19:46
Can someone please post pics when they convert an orc riding am ironback boar riding a wyvern?

Thanks.

warlord hack'a
30-08-2007, 20:12
Yes there is something to prevent a character from having two mounts, well two somethings actually:
a) common sense
b) the ironback boar is a boar. Now how can orcs acquire a boar, let me see: Aha, it's an option under mounts. So, the iron back boar can only be taken as a mount, therefor it is a mount. Can you please point me to the rule where it says that a character can take more than one mount? Surely such a exceptional situation would be clearly mentioned in the rules.

ZeroTwentythree
30-08-2007, 21:02
Yes there is something to prevent a character from having two mounts, well two somethings actually:
a) common sense
b) the ironback boar is a boar. Now how can orcs acquire a boar, let me see: Aha, it's an option under mounts. So, the iron back boar can only be taken as a mount, therefor it is a mount. Can you please point me to the rule where it says that a character can take more than one mount? Surely such a exceptional situation would be clearly mentioned in the rules.



a) Common sense also says orcs don't exist in the first place... ;)

b) Can you please point me to the rule where it says that characters can't take more than one mount?

Just playing devil's advocate here. I think b) is the point in question. Nowhere does it say you can't have two mounts, and in this particular instance specifically allows two. I'll quote Atrahasis's disclaimer and state "That doesn't mean that I think it is "right" in a fun sense" however. :D

Well, that and I still want to see the model.

DaBrode
30-08-2007, 21:19
The problem is that most of the people stating Atrahasis doesn't make sense aren't looking at the rules, they are looking at the fluff of the item. Yes it's a boar but it's a magical item. and can be used by any character capable of taking said magic items regardless of mounts or not. That said...change the fluff to something other than a full size mechanical boar and it WILL make sense.

warlord hack'a
30-08-2007, 22:05
zero23 my point is exactly that: common sense dictates a character can have only one mount. There is no need to write a rule saying that characters can NOT have two mounts as default it is normal that one person can ride one mount. The rulebook is not made to describe all that is NOT, it is made to descirbe all that is. So my points remains valid: the normal situation is that a person (in this world, but also in the warhammer world) rides one mount at a time. Since the ironback boar is a boar it is also therefor a mount (and at the same time an arcane item) thereby blocking the option of other mounts for this character.

The word boar is in the description of the item, you can not ignore this by saying: it's an enchanted item and a character can have an enchanted item and ride a mount at the same time so he can ride a boar and have the ironback boar enchanted item. The point is it is an enchanted item and at the same time it is a boar. it's BOTH

WLBjork
31-08-2007, 09:55
With regards to the Spear thing, I'll disagree slightly.

You can wield a Spear and a Hand Weapon at the same time, but there is no benefit from doing so.

Likewise, you can wield two spears at the same time, but there is no benefit from doing so (and AFAIK there are no models that can get two spears anyway).

(Are folks reading Atrahasis's signature?)

warlord hack'a
31-08-2007, 10:19
Yes I read Atrasis's sig and I know he would not show up with a orc warlord on wyvern with an ironback boar slung over it's shoulder. I am just pointing out that the rules are clear.

Atrahasis
31-08-2007, 10:22
I am just pointing out that the rules are clear.Even I'm not claiming that.

warlord hack'a
31-08-2007, 10:37
okay you got me there: I'm pointing out that for this instance of the Ironback boar, the rules are clear. After which I refer to my earlier post of the ironback boar being both a boar and an enchanted item.

I compare it to the following case: in close combat you can not use a shield and a GW at the same time. But a character is allowed to use a magic weapon and a shield at the same time. Now what if this magic weapon states that it is a great weapon? Does this mean we can use this magic weapon and a shield (after all we are allowed to use a magic weapon and a shield at the same time) or can we not use a shield as this magic weapon is a great weapon, meaning it takes up both hands..

Atrahasis
31-08-2007, 10:52
using and buying are two very different things; the rules specifically state that a great weapon and shied cannot be used together, but they can certainly be bought together.

In contrast, nothing says that an Ironback boar and wyvern cannot be used and bought together.

warlord hack'a
31-08-2007, 11:29
yes it does, ironback boar = boar, boar= mount, wyvern = mount. A character can only choose one mount (as is indicated by the wording 'or' in the warboss mount selection section of the O&G rulebook.

Atrahasis
31-08-2007, 11:36
An Ironback Boar is not a Boar as bought in the army list. It follows the rules for boars, but the selection criteria are not "carried over".

The only magic items the rules specify carry any selection criteria are those in the magic armour section.

warlord hack'a
31-08-2007, 11:54
An Ironback Boar is not a Boar as bought in the army list. It follows the rules for boars, but the selection criteria are not "carried over".


Who says the selection criteria are not passed over? When a magic weapon is a great weapon then those selection criteria (in hth GW and shield can not be used together)definitely pass over, along with the +2 S and the strike last, unless stated otherwise in the description of the magic item.

How is the ironback boar different?

Tutore
31-08-2007, 11:55
I wouldn't ever play against someone using ironback boar and another mount. So I think 99% of mankind wouldn't. If it is a loophole in the rules, it should be fixed. But I wouldn't ever play against someone claiming to use 2 mounts, even if one is the ironback boar.

Tutore
31-08-2007, 11:55
Who says the selection criteria are not passed over? When a magic weapon is a great weapon then those selection criteria (in hth GW and shield can not be used together)definitely pass over, along with the +2 S and the strike last, unless stated otherwise in the description of the magic item.

How is the ironback boar different?

Good point.

Atrahasis
31-08-2007, 12:19
Who says the selection criteria are not passed over? When a magic weapon is a great weapon then those selection criteria (in hth GW and shield can not be used together)definitely pass over,That is not a selection criterion. Selection criteria are what tell us what models can buy not what they can use.

In the case of the GW + Shield, the model can buy both. It cannot use both at the same time because the rules expressly say so.

No such rule prevents the Ironback Boar from being used at the same time as a Wyvern.

ZomboCom
31-08-2007, 12:41
There is indeed no rule that says you can ride only one mount, but if anyone ever tried that on me I'd pack up my models and leave.

Tutore
31-08-2007, 12:45
There is indeed no rule that says you can ride only one mount, but if anyone ever tried that on me I'd pack up my models and leave.

Exactly what I said. Or, I would play, massacre him, and then say I would never play with him again. One of the two.

Steeve
31-08-2007, 14:17
An Ironback Boar is not a Boar as bought in the army list. It follows the rules for boars, but the selection criteria are not "carried over".

The only magic items the rules specify carry any selection criteria are those in the magic armour section.

This goes to the meaning of "Boar.", again.
You are saying that "Boar." means the rules by which the "Ironback Boar" are governed. Given that, it can only be used as a mount, in so far as the way in which it can be individually purchased.


That is not a selection criterion. Selection criteria are what tell us what models can buy not what they can use.

In the case of the GW + Shield, the model can buy both. It cannot use both at the same time because the rules expressly say so.

No such rule prevents the Ironback Boar from being used at the same time as a Wyvern.

Using the above logic I would say an Ironback boar could purchased but not used. Kinda pointless.:)

Atrahasis
31-08-2007, 15:37
You could say it, but you'd be displaying a supreme lack of understanding for the logic.

warlord hack'a
31-08-2007, 16:07
here we go again; the rules do not describe a certain situation and then also descirbe all the situations that are not, it simply describes the situation that is.

When I say that the font color of this site is red then I do not have to add that it is not green, also not that it is not yellow. It is red. And once again, when a character can have and use more than one mount at the same time, that to me seems like a big exception to what normally can be expected, surely they would have made a rule describing this unusual situation, so where is the page where that is written...?

Urgat
31-08-2007, 16:08
An Ironback Boar is not a Boar as bought in the army list. It follows the rules for boars, but the selection criteria are not "carried over".

excepted, of course, that the rules don't say that it counts as a boar. they say it IS a boar. There is no count as, consider, whatever. It is, quite plainly, written: Boar. It IS a boar, period. So you take it as a boar with additional magical rules, and not as a magical object with boar-like stats.

And as for the one saying that changing the fluff would make it logical, well, yeah, by changing the fluff, I can turn dragons into fire-breathing mushrooms that can be only wielded by left-handed uni-legged squigs. Of course it could still allow the wearer to fly (spores are known to make spirits lighter), the stench would be quite "terrorific", and its rubber qualities would give its own self conscious being quite resistant qualities.

How awesome is that?

I can't believe I'm falling to such depths to reply to the suggestion that someone can ride two mounts at the same time ><

I do believe that in the rulebook (yes, therfore, in the goddamn rules) it is stated that you should first and foremost, use common sense. Look for yourself, in the first pages. basically the rules ask you to stop being stupid :p

Shimmergloom
31-08-2007, 23:15
The greenskins rules are already written crappily enough without going out and looking for clear rules and trying to find loopholes for them.

We should concentrate on trying to get clear rules for things that don't have them...

Wait...

I lost my train of thought.

Was distracted by all the pictures of models in the army book. Shiney models...

Hey a new giant!

WLBjork
01-09-2007, 09:38
Common Sense died years ago.

It died when people opened spilt coffee from McDonalds down themselves.

It died when warnings such as "Do not stop blade with hands" became necessary on chainsaws.

It died when... well - you get the idea.

Steeve
01-09-2007, 16:25
You could say it, but you'd be displaying a supreme lack of understanding for the logic.

here are my assumed facts:,

a.) Ironback boar is either a boar or it's action and behaviour is governed by the definition of a boar, (thereby for all intents and purposes functions and behaves as a boar)
b.) O&G armybook defines boars as mounts.
c.) O&G armybook limits characters to a single mount.
e.) Characters are allowed only one enchanted item.

Given the above facts, my logic is inescapable, unless some of my assumed facts are incorrect... (which I am open to, given clear logic to the contrary).

Steeve
01-09-2007, 16:36
here are my assumed facts:,

a.) Ironback boar is either a boar or it's action and behaviour is governed by the definition of a boar, (thereby for all intents and purposes functions and behaves as a boar)
b.) O&G armybook defines boars as mounts.
c.) O&G armybook limits characters to a single mount.
e.) Characters are allowed only one enchanted item.

Given the above facts, my logic is inescapable, unless some of my assumed facts are incorrect... (which I am open to, given clear logic to the contrary).

For some reason I cannot edit my posts, SO, replace "defines" in b.) with "characterises". :)

Krankenstein
01-09-2007, 18:29
If some dude made a Ironback Boar / chariot conversion I would play him. If David Hasselhoff could ride a Pontiac inside a truck in Knight Rider, a loony ork could do the same.

ZomboCom
02-09-2007, 13:23
c.) O&G armybook limits characters to a single mount.

I am yet to see such a quote.

Urgat
02-09-2007, 14:17
If some dude made a Ironback Boar / chariot conversion I would play him. If David Hasselhoff could ride a Pontiac inside a truck in Knight Rider, a loony ork could do the same.

I'm not quite sure you grasp the meaning of a "mount" that costs 115pt, charges at 14", deals 3S5 attacks + 2D6+1 S5 hits + two additional S4 hits on charge with the additional small bonus of also carrying around a warboss with 65pt worth of additional magic items. But if I ever meet you, I would gladly test that on you :D

ZomboCom:
Characters list:
"May ride a Boar, a Wyvern, OR may ride in an Orc Boar Charriot".
Notice that contrary to the options when you're allowed to carry multiple things (ex: goblin wolf riders: "may be equipped with spears AND/OR bows", there's no "and" in there. And, whoopy! As it as been repeated eons of times in this thread already, in the Ironback boar description, it is written... "boar"! So taking the Ironback boar counts as riding a... Yes! a boar!!!!!
Now I'm not bothering replying to any such sillyness anymore, and, btw, since I'm the OP, I'll kinddly ask you to discuss about this nonsense in a new thread if you really want to.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
02-09-2007, 15:01
I feel like some people are posting just to be silly/contrary, which is fine but not helpful. And maybe some are because they think if they can create enough confusion, everyone will agree with them that the rules need to be super-specific and cover every situation so there will never be a dispute, only a page number and a paragraph. But I truely believe that if everyone were being serious and reasonable, we could all agree that it's impossible for a character to ride two mounts. It just is. There's no rule because it just is. And as much as RAW replaced common sense, or so some people think, there's no game without having to resort to reason every once in a while to figure things out.

Joking is fun and all, and being devil's advocate is...well...pretty annoying and useless, but just because you think GW has lost all commmon sense doesn't mean we have to.

winter has ended
02-09-2007, 15:53
I'm not quite sure you grasp the meaning of a "mount" that costs 115pt, charges at 14", deals 3S5 attacks + 2D6+1 S5 hits + two additional S4 hits on charge with the additional small bonus of also carrying around a warboss with 65pt worth of additional magic items. .

erm how did you get that many attacks? you would only get the boars d3 inpact hits and its one attack, then the riders 4 not alll that other stuff?

Krankenstein
02-09-2007, 18:10
I'm not quite sure you grasp the meaning of a "mount" that costs 115pt, charges at 14", deals 3S5 attacks + 2D6+1 S5 hits + two additional S4 hits on charge with the additional small bonus of also carrying around a warboss with 65pt worth of additional magic items. But if I ever meet you, I would gladly test that on you :D


As long as you're WYSIWYG: Funky!

... and the only thing I really have to grasp is that I charge 16".

DaBrode
02-09-2007, 21:44
I am yet to see such a quote.

Steeve has a tendency to use his own logic rather than read the rules and come to a logical conclusion...using everybody's logic.

I'm agreeing with Atrahasis on this one as corny as the end result is.

A character, while being developed, is allowed to choose various options. One of the options is a mount. It's clear during that point in creation that only one mount may be chosen.

At another stage in a character's creation he/she is allowed magical items at which point, regardless of whether said item is described as a sword, a shoe or a wooly mammoth, you may choose to equip that character with that magic item.

Hence you could choose to have a Character with a boar mount and an Ironback Boar. Why you would choose this or how you would play it are not questions I can answer however an Ironback Boar says no where in it's description that it is a mount only that it's a boar OR that it follows a Boar's rule set. Now you can assume that means it IS a mount but there is nothing that tells us that Boars are exclusively mounts in warhammer.

So for the above reasons and using logic without assumption I have to agree with Atrahasis...albeit a stupid decision and waste of points...it's completely possible.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
02-09-2007, 23:00
I think it is at best very silly and at worst very sad that there are so many people of the opinion, "Well, depsite the fact that if I were to explain to someone what the Ironback Boar was I'd say it was a mechanical boar that an orc can ride, the rules still tell anyone without the ability to reason that you can have a regular mount in addition to it because the Ironback is in the magic items section." I know it's funny to imagine someone modelling a guy on the boar in the back of a chariot, but do you really think that's what they meant when they wrote the rules? Or does it seem like a bit of twisting of some poorly specified rules? I hope that most of you are just trying to be contrary and needle somebody's skin, because if you really believe that this should/is/ought to be legal, you should seriously re-evaluate what the purpose of a game's ruleset is, and the role of logic and common sense in both games AND life.

Now, off to model me a Ironback Boarvern. Eat my poisoned impact hits!!

athamas
02-09-2007, 23:14
its kinda obviouse what was intended here, its a boar, that does impact hits...

the boar is not armed with a magical weapon so it does not transfer its magic status onto those hits...


but if it is magical meh...


on the line of if it can be destroyed by magic [i acept taking away its impact hits] but if someonestates that the boar as a magic item 'dies' and you must now walk on foot, then by the same token you can legaly mount your character on a wyven and then have the magical boar... for it is not a boar in the normal sense.. else it could not be destroyed by magic and thus you are not bounf by the normal mount rules.. as its not a boar...


but it is... so...

Steeve
03-09-2007, 12:55
however an Ironback Boar says no where in it's description that it is a mount only that it's a boar OR that it follows a Boar's rule set. Now you can assume that means it IS a mount but there is nothing that tells us that Boars are exclusively mounts in warhammer.

Boars are only ever mentioned or pictured as mounts, (as pulling a chariot or mounted). "When charging, this steed...", what do you suppose steed means?

Language is imprecise, this is why legal documents are long and convoluted, they are an attempt to make language more precise. If GW tried to do this with the rulebook I doubt many would take the time to understand it. The book is meant to be a quick yet concise read trading precision for readability. This trade off requires common sense be applied to the context, as well as the precise meaning of the wording.

You give the impression that you strongly disagree, yet you post detail that is almost entirely in support of my postion.


Steeve has a tendency to use his own logic rather than read the rules and come to a logical conclusion...using everybody's logic.

In this case, how is consensus a proof?

Urgat
03-09-2007, 16:54
erm how did you get that many attacks? you would only get the boars d3 inpact hits and its one attack, then the riders 4 not alll that other stuff?

No, I mean, following the idiotic idea that you can put an ironback boar riding character in a charriot. if he charges, he charges with his two mounts, after all ( :rolleyes: )
Anyway yeah; sorry, the ironback boar is D3.
So, the charriot: 2D6+1 S5 impact hits, plus 2 S5 attacks from the regular boars, plus 2 orcs with lance -of course you're byuing the extra one, no point not taking him(S4 attacks). To that you add the regular ironback boar attack (1S5 attack on charge, like the charriot boars), plus its D3 S5 impact hits.
BTW, to increase the fun, put a savage orc warlord in there. Now, with the impact hits (1D9+1 S5 hits, so to speak), you now get 6 S5 attacks from the boars (nyark) and, since the other orcs in the charriot are also, after all, part of the "mount", 4 S4 attacks, thanks to frenesy.
Cool, no? I take any chaos dragon anyday with that :p

Now I think I'm going to ask for the topic to be closed just to stop that, it's getting to my head, now that I read what I just posted :/.

Wings of Doom
04-09-2007, 16:40
Does anyone have a rulebook quote supporting/denying that only magical weapons make magical attacks? Having a quick skim of my BRB, notably pages 120-121 and 270-271 I can't find any referance to 'magical attacks' at all. If memory stands, the only places I have read 'magical attacks' are in the rules for daemons- their attacks and daemonic aura- forest spirits, in the same vain, and graveguard/tomb guard/ other specific units with special rules giving them magical attacks in their armybooks*.

Seems it might have been miseed out of 7th...

The Ironback boar having no specific rule saying it causes magical attacks, I would say it does nto cause magical attacks. Unfortunatly, using 7th ed. (lack of) rules I would also have to apply this to the magority of magic weapons, which doesn't make sense. Ah well, whoever said warhammer had to?

*Though not having any of those respective books to hand I may be wrong in the wording- in each case 'attack' (contextually magical attack) may indeed be 'weapon' (e.g. the special rule for tomb guard may be they have magical weapons not magical attacks, and magical weapons, not magical attacks may be included in the list of things which disallow the daemonic aura save).

If this is the case then the Ironback boar's attacks would not be magical, but attacks with a magical weapon would be.

All of this has made my throat RAW.

Oh, thats a bad pun...

I feel a need to apologise (not just for the pun). Refer to diclaimer.
If this is the case then magical weapons

DaBrode
05-09-2007, 14:46
Boars are only ever mentioned or pictured as mounts, (as pulling a chariot or mounted).

In this one sentence you contradict or at the very least correct yourself and thus defend the very point I'm making. They are not just mounts, they also pull chariots. You are assuming that Boar = Mount and it does not. Personal assumption is not part of logical debate.

ZomboCom
05-09-2007, 17:06
As for the question of magical impact hits, well, the only other mount I can think of that is bought as a magic item and does impact hits is the Tomb King Chariot of Fire, which specifically states that the impact hits are magical.

That can be taken two ways, either as precident that magic item mounts do magical impact hits, or since the tomb king one specifically says it does, and the orc one doesn't, that the boar doesn't do magical impact hits.

I'm more inclined to say they're not magical, but I doubt I'd argue it in a game.

Festus
05-09-2007, 17:46
Wow, this thread sure is silly - and degenerating :D

Everybody trying to mount a character with Ironback Boar on a Wyvern - or telling that the Boar's impact hits are non-magical for that matter - will surely have seen the last of me and my minis.

Yes. Even in a Tournament. Period.

Festus