As title states,
Does the Ward Save from the War Altar transfer to the Arch Lector also ?
In the previous edition it did...
Now in 8th edition, I am not so sure..
I've had other inform me that it does not..
However, I have not seen anything in print to prove nor disprove either claim...
Page number with references, much appreciated...
Thanks..
The War Altar is a chariot and follows the rules for chariots and ridden Monsters. The Rule you are searching is on page 105. The Arch lector does not get the Ward Save, just the Waralter, since rules of the ridden monster do not apply to the rider.
I did see that prior to posting. However, I really don't like the merry-go-round style of rules.
It's the paper chase syndrome all over again. Go to page xxx which tells you to go to another page xxx...
Here, it says same as Ridden Monsters.. RM tells you to go to pg. 82 for other stuff.. This tells you to go to pg. 76...
I'm just saying... it's irritating to say the least..
the best part of this is... that it starts off by saying,"We assume .... ridden monster do not normally ... "..
Hopefully a FAQ will clarify this a bit more.. It's a weak link but a link none the less...
I don't see a chariot as a Monster and that's a poorly written add in.... (my opinion of course).
You have to ask yourself if this "merry-go-round of rules" as you putting it, is opposing the fact that there are no rules saying, or supporting you getting the ward save, and this is actually what you don't like... you want the ward save, but there is no rules saying you do, and this is what irritates you.
That's a pretty bold statement.Originally Posted by Scalebug
Normal rules state that the wardsave doesn't transfer from the mount to the rider (in the case of chariots), there is no exception to my knowledge for the War Alter.
Bretonnians ARE NOT a pure Knightly army.
Half the army choices consist out of Peasants and Damsels.
'Pride cometh before a choppa in the face'
No, it's pretty annoying that significant number of rules in this edition are found by following a trail 'this follows the rules for this other thing'.
For instance, if I put a hero on a pegasus, I should look up the rules for the Pegasus. They says it's monstrous cavalry. If I then look up the rules for monstrous cavalry, I'll see it has some rules of its own, but that I should also read the rules for cavalry. In addition, I should also note that it counts as being 'fast cavalry'. If I look up fast cav, then I see that my guy on a pegasus gets a vanguard move.
It'd be a lot easier to check this stuff if they removed all this 'as a this, you get all the stuff for this other thing, which gets all the stuff for this other, other thing' nonsense, and just flat out stated in the unit entry what special rules a unit got.
I agree 8th ed. is fun (I like big units... big magic...) but it's very badly written and therefore very hard to remember (one friend of mine decided to stick to LoTR because of that and has stoped playing WFB...)... You can see in battle reports that a lot of people forget parts of the rule (same with me)...
I dunno why they did this... maybe that way you can upgrade the army books more easily...
Anyway the strategy content of WFB 8th is poor (terrain and movement especially) ... but there is still a good strategy ... buy the new OP stuff ... so forget the War Altar and buy Griffins Knight!
PS: everybody play poker these days and nobody play chess anymore... (I like both)
@ Scalebug - my inference to merry-go-round rules was more articulated by Jezbot. Jezbot got exactly what I meant with perhaps a better example. It's not that the AL loses the Ward Save but rather the very faint and weak link of the rules that state it "may" be the case. I'll accept that the AL does not get a Ward Save as that seems to be the general consensus. I'm just not seeing the Chariot as a Ridden Monster.... That really was part of my point..
@Darkrolia - You also get the very gist of what I was talking about. I'm glad that others understand my frustration with the rules writing. In other words, I'm saying that I'm glad that I'm not the only one that thinks so...
Thanks one and all for helping to clarify this particular issue.
Fair enough, it was just an honest observation that often people might want to ask themselves why they dislike a rule, or in this case how rules are laid out, and if maybe they are coloured by wanting it to work differently...
Hi there,
I've followed your paper trail but got lost at the very last point. Where does it say that you should also note that it's considered fast cav? Would be interesting if it was so but I've never played it that way nor have I found the rules supporting this. Please enlighten me..
Regards
maybe hes bret? arent they fast cav as well.
2.5k+ bretonnian army
Brets 3/4/3
1.5k Dark Elf army
DE 4/1/0
In this case it isn't really a situation of merry-go-round rules (which I agree are annoying, some of the army books and codexes are guilty of this too), but preconceptions of the previous editions. If you picked up the rulebook and army book for the first time would you assume a Ward save from the mount/chariot applied to the character? The only real reason to assume the 4+ applied to the character is the fact that it used to in the old rules, but there was a specific rule there that's absent now. This is of course a common problem for players who play more than one edition. It was quite a while before I realised that one of the important Steam Tank changes was what was omitted - it is no longer hit automatically in close combat. If I hadn't played the game before I would never have assumed it was hit automatically.
... and then I won.
I agree with the pink avenger.
There's nothing in the rulebook saying that a character in a chariot gets the chariot's ward save, and you're getting frustrated because you're actively seeking (and not finding) a rule you expected to exist. Simply put, there is no rule saying he can, and therefore he can't. No FAQ needed.
The reason Bretonian Pegasus knights are Fast Cavalry is because they have the Flying Cavalry rule, something that is described in the rules for Flying. However, a Paladin on a Pegasus does not have said rule (if I recall correctly) and so is in the same boat as the Imperial Captain.
Also, it's worth noting in regards to the subject at hand that many of us criticized GW for how they handled the Golden Eye of Tzeentch in Warriors of Chaos for doing exactly what the original poster wants when the line about the mount not receiving the 4+ ward was unnecessary. This caused great confusion in new players who suddenly second guessed if ward saves were transferred between rider and mount or not. It's nice to see GW taking these lessons to heart.
"That's one man's opinion." Sign off quote from local retired radio announcer Rick Smith
iWAAAGH! Yup, we've got an Orc for dat.
Lord Inquisitor has a great point. GW really needs to put out a "Things That Used To Be, But Are No Longer The Case" pamphlet to go along with the rulebook and army books. It seems that we are discovering something we're doing wrong (that used to be right) every time we play.
That, and yes. Chasing rules from page to page and from book to book gets old really quickly.
I might have part of wrong (part of the hassle of these paper trails is forgetting how you got from A to F almost as soon as you get there). Point is I knew my Pegasus got a vanguard move, and my opponent asked if I was sure, I responded pretty sure, and I'd be happy to find it - leading me to flick through a bunch of different rules sections to eventually establish that yes, it did.
Scalebug hit the nail on the head, and moss, it was no bold statement. You cannot find a rule that does not exist, and looking for proof of non-existence is a futile exercise. Yes, the monster - monstrous mounts - chariots - monstrous chariots - flying mounts - dragon chariots - cavalry flying in monstrous clouds section is a veritable mess and prime candidate for being ripped out but for this, you only need to look at the AB entry, ward and chariot rules.
The Germans are exceedingly fond of Rhine wines; they are put up in tall, slender bottles, and are considered a pleasant beverage. One tells them from vinegar by the label.
www.tablepott.de - Wir sind das Ruhrgebiet!
Knighttime said he got frustrated because he doesn't like having to look in several locations for a given rule/conclusion. Scalebug basically said, "I believe you may be lying. You say you are frustrated because of this, but let's consider the possibility that you are really frustrated because of this more dishonorable reason."
I know, that is just one way to take it (and I may be the only one who took it that way) and he probably didn't mean for it to be as harsh as I put it just now, but it is a way to interpret his statement. I think that's bold. He later clarified his intentions, but it doesn't change the fact that the initial statement may have been a bit on the bold side.
What? How is it "dishonorable" to be frustrated because you can't find a rule that you expect to be there, but that doesn't exist? It happens to me all the time, and I honestly find it way more frustrating than having to flip back and forth between pages.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote