Skullcrushers and Mark of Khorne

[Xerkics]

Im a little confused on this . Mark of Khorne is already included on the profile for the models. I already read the knight thread and there didnt seem a definite ruling on this but more of interpretations . With skullcrushers since mok is on the profile does this mean both juggernaut and and skullcrusher knight benefit from frenzy? Since you dont buy the knight the mark? MY friends always told me that if i buy knights a mark only the knights get the extra attack from frenzy and not the horses, so im wondering whether its different in this case.

[Kalandros]

Technically the marks should only work for rider, not mount.
But RAW it seems that the model has the Mark, thus both mount and rider would benefit.

But its not entirely clear. So play it however you want really.

[Xerkics]

Well i would like to apply it to the mount as well but people i play with say as a demon of khorne juggernaut already has mok factored into its profile which is why it has 2 attacks so it cant benefit from the mark on the dude.

[PurpleSun]

Well i would like to apply it to the mount as well but people i play with say as a demon of khorne juggernaut already has mok factored into its profile which is why it has 2 attacks so it cant benefit from the mark on the dude.

That does not really make sense though, because if the juggernaut has 2 attacks because of frenzy, then he should go down to 1 attack if they lose a round of combat. God forbid GW would finally put this issue to rest.

[AMWOOD co]

I already read the knight thread and there didnt seem a definite ruling on this but more of interpretations.

Yeah, you're pretty much right. This is one of the larger rule gaps in the current system. There's no real way to draw from 'the unit/model has Frenzy' to either 'the rider has Frenzy' or 'the steed has Frenzy'.

I won't start that debate again. I don't want to be jumping through those same hoops. Here's hoping the new book makes it clearer.

ps. Does anyone know the books release date?

[Xerkics]

Yeah, you're pretty much right. This is one of the larger rule gaps in the current system. There's no real way to draw from 'the unit/model has Frenzy' to either 'the rider has Frenzy' or 'the steed has Frenzy'.

I won't start that debate again. I don't want to be jumping through those same hoops. Here's hoping the new book makes it clearer.

ps. Does anyone know the books release date?

I think it was said its due in march after both daemon books high elves and dark angels but that seems pretty tight.

[TsukeFox]

But the Frenzy Banner gives mounts the extra attack so it is hard to make a clear ruling.

Fail GW fail

[AMWOOD co]

But the Frenzy Banner gives mounts the extra attack so it is hard to make a clear ruling.

Fail GW fail

Indeed. They put it in as an errata, but still fail to address the central issue. *sigh* Someday… maybe…

[Althwen]

Isn't the new FAQ on the Banner of Rage an indication of how it should be played in GW's view?

I'm not really bothered, since my gaming group has played it that rank and file mounts DO benefit, but character mounts don't (Unless in a unit with the banner now obviously.)

On top of the existing issue, they even added to the confusion with the new Slaanesh fast cav and their Hellscourge upgrades, which states that models with the upgrade benefit from ASF. And voila, if you we're FOR mounts benefiting from Frenzy before, now you also get ASF mounts on top of that!

[logan054]

Yes and no, while it makes sense for cavalry, what about chariots? only one crew member would get a extra attack rather than both, I assume its worded that way because of chariots and not making the mark pointless on them.

[AMWOOD co]

Isn't the new FAQ on the Banner of Rage an indication of how it should be played in GW's view?

It is for the banner, but this is a broader issue. Also, if it were an FAQ rather than an amendment, we would likely draw it as a precedent. However, with it being a change to the text, it can be used by both sides, the side for both saying that it is now stating what GW didn't express in words before (ie. Intent) and the side for riders only saying they expressed it as an explicit exception. For the Mark debate (and when dealing with spells on a whole) this does nothing to solve the issue.

Indeed, this doesn't even help with the Razor Standard (a parallel I've often drawn on), as one could say they simply grandfathered the Banner of Rage (ie. they made it work the way ot was meant to when it was written, affecting all parts of the unit).

…blast, now I'm arguing both sides with myself…

[Mr_Rose]

…blast, now I'm arguing both sides with myself…

That's usually how you know you're actually looking for the right answer and not simply trying to justify a prejudice. Hold on to that feeling; it will make you a better person.

[AMWOOD co]

That's usually how you know you're actually looking for the right answer and not simply trying to justify a prejudice. Hold on to that feeling; it will make you a better person.

That could be, and is why I so often play Devil's Advocate on the forums here (Tzeentch's Accolyte?). Better to look at both sides, if for no other reason than maintaining internal coherency. If one side is incoherent, then it usually takes someone looking at it from a… what's the phrase… 'objectively subjective' viewpoint.

Then again, my family has a history of schizophrenia. Pray that when I argue with myself, it stays figurative.

[ElBeaver]

At p. 82 under SPLIT PROFILE it says 1) "Although a cavalry model has two sets of characteristics, one of the rider and one for the mount, it is treated in all respects as a single model..." - looking at the next page under MONSTROUS CAVALRY it states that 2) "All the cavalry rules apply to monstrous cavalry...".
Not to forget p. 82 it states that 3) "If either the rider or the mount have Frenzy, then the whole model is subject to the Berserk Rage, but only the element with the Frenzy rule gains an Extra Attack.".
In WoC army book p. 110 The Mark of Khorne states: 4) "A model with the Mark of Khorne is subject to Frenzy", and for each option, ex. p 125 for CHAOS KNIGHTS "The unit may have a Mark of Chaos..." - ie. not the rider, the unit which must mean both rider and mount - supported further by rule 1), then I cannot make any other conclusion than both the rider and the mount have the Frenzy rule. The Errata on the "Banner of Rage" does nothing more than clarify that the Frenzy provided by this banner also applies to the mount if given to a cavalry unit.
I do not have the new WD yet, but it would make little sense that it would be any different for SC then CK with MoK.

Had it stated that the Mark of Khorne was applied only to the rider (as may or may not be in the case of characters), then rule 3) would come into play - unless it is a Manticore which can affect it's rider with Frenzy.

edit:

Links to both erratas for your convenience

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_...Chaos_v1.5.pdf
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_...book_v1.6a.pdf

[xxRavenxx]

You can tell that the page 82 argument doesn't hold water when you notice that a Chariot of khorne is 30 pts more than a regular chariot, with no bonus attacks at all, and an added drawback. :P

Each side of the argument has little grounding for their statements about how the MoK works, and GW seem unable to put an FAQ on it.

The problem with the banner "as precident" is does it set a precident that all frenzy giving works like it does, or is the precident that as the only FAQed item, it is the only frenzy handout which works in that way.

The answer is, as always, find out what your opponent (or the TO) thinks before you begin your game, and come to an agreement.

[Last Edition]

If you can identify which element of the model has the Frenzy special rule, then only that element get the extra attack (or any other special rule except noted exceptions); like you can in the Vampire army book - Blood Knights. This can be identified by either looking at the special rule marked like this: Frenzy (X unit only) or if the mount has it's own entry, like the Juggernaut and Nightmares. If the element that posses the frenzy rule can't be identified, each element of the model gain extra attack, like on Chaos chariots and Chaos Knights.

This is how I interpret the BRB

[hamsterwheel]

This has always been pretty simplistic to me. I've always treated it that if a model is a single model with multiple parts that cannot be attacked seperately then the Mark applies to both. A chariot with a character consists of two seperate parts, the character, and the chariot/steeds/warriors. If you purchase MoK for the character, it only applies to the character and if you buy it for the chariot, it only applies to the chariot/steeds/warriors because the two can be singled out in close combat, similar to a ridden monster.

[Last Edition]

This has always been pretty simplistic to me. I've always treated it that if a model is a single model with multiple parts that cannot be attacked seperately then the Mark applies to both. A chariot with a character consists of two seperate parts, the character, and the chariot/steeds/warriors. If you purchase MoK for the character, it only applies to the character and if you buy it for the chariot, it only applies to the chariot/steeds/warriors because the two can be singled out in close combat, similar to a ridden monster.

It is not that simple I'm afraid, as Blood Knight mounts do not benefit from frenzy's extra attack rule shown in GW's latest FAQ.

[Voss]

The answer is, as always, find out what your opponent (or the TO) thinks before you begin your game, and come to an agreement.

That isn't much of an answer, however. You may find that people are rather reluctant to spend a pile of money to buy a MoK-heavy cavalry army if the number of attacks the army can put out can vary by the number of cavalry models in the army, depending solely on what opposing players think about frenzy.

[cptcosmic]

mounts usually have seperate entries if the mount has any special rules by itself. as long there is no entry that states the mount benefits from the mark or has the mark it simply does not have it. that is how we play it in our store atleast.

problem is that the ruling is not done well and you can argue for both option pretty easily.