As the title what the hell are the rules for the Twins on the Eagle. Neither Montrous nor normal Cavalry rules seem to fit at all with the two riders rules. So how is this supposed to work? How does it interact with conjoined destiny? Just what the hell?

They are two profiles, but still one entry, so treat them as such, so what happens when you put a model on a monstrous beast you use the highest T and W available, in this case the rider has two profiles, so both are affected, since we do not have permission to treat a model with two rider profiles differently than a model with one.

In short the sisters become even harder to kill.

How do they become harder to kill? Sorry what happens when I shoot them and score say 5 hits? Or a Cannonball hits the model? Does conjoined destiny do nothing when on the Eagle?

So any advance on them just being a single T4 3 wounded model where Conjoined Destiny does nothing?

I don't believe that they are a single model, each of them has a profile and just happen to be in the same unit. You can't ignore the conjoined destiny rule, they create a unit, emphasis on "unit", and then just happen to ride each eagle. Essentially, this would mean you have two t4 w3 models.

On a side note, I do believe this is what would make them worth thier point cost. On the other hand, it might make them too hard to kill, double the chance for the cannon ball to do roll a 1 or 2 on wounds for just one of them to wipe out the wounds they suffered completely....

So they both have a profile. They only form a unit if their mount dies. Montrous Cav use a combined profile for being attacked. If they are separate entities how do you resolve shooting against them and what rules are you using?

My take on it is this:

The "unit" has three profiles, one for each sister, and one for the eagle/dragon. For the eagle, you simply refer to entry in the Army book that talks about what the great eagle is, which Im pretty sure falls into flying monstrous cav. Dont have the book in front of me at the moment so I refer back later.

If this is the case, then you would randomize it amongst the three parties before rolling to wound. 1-2 is eagle, 3-4 is one sister, 5-6 is the other. This means you cannot kill them with cannon balls unless you fire three into them and successfully wound them all before the end of the phase (because it says phase in their entry).

What speaks against applying Monstrous Cavalry rules to them?#

I mean, besides common sense

They become MC. There are no rules in the WE book for this, so they follow the BRB rules. So. They become a 3 wound model. I do suspect that randomisation comes into it somewhere though.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
My take on it is this:

The "unit" has three profiles, one for each sister, and one for the eagle/dragon. For the eagle, you simply refer to entry in the Army book that talks about what the great eagle is, which Im pretty sure falls into flying monstrous cav. Dont have the book in front of me at the moment so I refer back later.

If this is the case, then you would randomize it amongst the three parties before rolling to wound. 1-2 is eagle, 3-4 is one sister, 5-6 is the other. This means you cannot kill them with cannon balls unless you fire three into them and successfully wound them all before the end of the phase (because it says phase in their entry).

Yes they are Monstrous Cav. Where are you getting randomisation from? Do you randomise when you shoot at Mournfang or Pegasus Knights? You shouldn't be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
They become MC. There are no rules in the WE book for this, so they follow the BRB rules. So. They become a 3 wound model. I do suspect that randomisation comes into it somewhere though.

So conjoined destiny does nothing when on the Eagle?

I think they only way that makes sense is to play them both as T4 W3, and randomize hits between them.
I'm thinking though the best use is a hero slot dragon, with 6 S6 attacks, and 6 S5 armor piercing attacks (ASF), and half those S5 attacks get +1 to wound.

In combat and shooting or do you choose in combat? What about templates? Hit both? I take it at this point we're just making up rules are there are none that actually tell us what to do.

Again: what stops them from becoming MC? Do they have a USR that prohibits it?

 FlingitNow wrote:
In combat and shooting or do you choose in combat? What about templates? Hit both? I take it at this point we're just making up rules are there are none that actually tell us what to do.

Now you're just being obtuse... maybe turn it down a notch so we solve this in a civilized manner

I can agree with the interpretation that on the eagle, both become t4 with three wounds. If they are in close combat then there is no need to randomize as you just declare which sister you are swinging against since they are oth on the same base. In shooting they will be randomized, unless you have the sniper special rule. With a template, both are hit.

When riding a dragon, as I illustrated earlier, since they are riding a monstrous creature, the hits would have to be randomized before hand as illustrated in the BRB

I don't have a problem with them on the Dragon. Dragons aren't Montrous Ceatures they are Monsters. With Monsters you randomise, ok we need to invent a further step to randomise between each rider if the rider is hit but at least we're following an existing process.

What about on a Monstrous beast. What rules are you using to randomise? What rules are you using that don't result in the entire model being removed the moment you've done 3 wounds to it?

If you're claiming we're not inventing rules then you need to state what rules you're using and when and what gives you permission to use those rules.

Fling - they're treating them as if they were riding two separate eagles.

Personally, here's what I would do because of the rule about them acting as a unit of two once their mount is slain. This gives you permission to slay their mount.

So, when on the eagle, they have T4 W3. When they are killed, that's the eagle that died, since that's the eagle's T4 W3. So you take them off the eagle and put them on foot.

 FlingitNow wrote:
In combat and shooting or do you choose in combat? What about templates? Hit both? I take it at this point we're just making up rules are there are none that actually tell us what to do.

If I fire at a unit that has 2 models in it, how do you randomize the hits?
That's the same thing I'd do for the sisters.

I think it's the best fit until it gets FAQ'd, or a new basic rulebook comes out changing how Monstrous Beasts and Riders work.

-Matt

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Fling - they're treating them as if they were riding two separate eagles.

Personally, here's what I would do because of the rule about them acting as a unit of two once their mount is slain. This gives you permission to slay their mount.

So, when on the eagle, they have T4 W3. When they are killed, that's the eagle that died, since that's the eagle's T4 W3. So you take them off the eagle and put them on foot.

Firstly they aren't riding 2 separate Eagles nor are we given permission to treat them as such.

The treat them as a unit once their mount is slain clearly only applies when on the Dragon as that is the only mount that can attack separately.

Treating the first 3 wounds as killing the mount is just a baffling interpretation. Has anyone got any rules based ideas or a solid HYWPI that is close to a likely RaI based on something actually real?

It's not based on any true RAW but my interpretation is that you would have 2 individual elements, both with T4/3W, sharing the same base. Incoming attacks could choose which to attack while shooting would be randomised, in exactly the same way as a Character riding a Monster. I choose this because it is the only situation I can think of where a single model has 'subsections' that can be attacked separately.

Yes this means you need to pump out 6 Wounds to a 50mm base in one phase or you get nothing, so it's probably far more durable than it should be. On the other side it's fairly easy to deal with using ranged weaponry. In particular, a template weapon (See Cannons) would hit both Sisters in the same volley. The Eagle cannot be attacked separately in the same way as a Monster.

On the other hand, we have a complication in that there is nothing to allow both Sisters to shoot in the same turn. After all they are still a single model. Furthermore, I assume they would take a single roll when making a Stat test.

I would have thought they would take two stat tests because there are two of them.

Eagle is Flying Mon Cav, so they use the wounds and toughness of the Eagle. Seeing as there are two of them they each have the same stats. It's a little bit like having two MC in the same unit, except both riders are on the same model.

 FlingitNow wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:
They become MC. There are no rules in the WE book for this, so they follow the BRB rules. So. They become a 3 wound model. I do suspect that randomisation comes into it somewhere though.

So conjoined destiny does nothing when on the Eagle?

It would seem so.

This is one of the many problems we will face with the new army book. I find it silly that they lose conjoined destiny due to changing mounts.
We will wait for a FAQ and till then there is nothing we can do. Apart from that everything else is mostly making up rules that don't exist.

What I dont get is how over thought this whole thing has become.

Suddenly the rules arent clear and everyones world is falling apart.

These are two seperate models. They have act as one for most of their actions, excluding shooting and CC... For being mounted, they are still seperate models that are on the same mount. One model becomes T4 with three wounds, another model on the same base also becomes T4 and three wounds. Whenever there is an instance of mulitple models being affected, then all the models that can be affected are affected. If they are targeted by something that can only hit one model at a time, you randomize it just like the BRB says.

We need to knock off this whole "but the BRB only talks about one model... we dont know what to do about two...". These rules have been and always will be adaptable in these scenarios, certainly more-so than 40K, and we are given an oppurtunity to really hash this out and keep it from becoming a problem. Just think outside the box and the answer will smack you right in the gob.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
What I dont get is how over thought this whole thing has become.

Suddenly the rules arent clear and everyones world is falling apart.

These are two seperate models. They have act as one for most of their actions, excluding shooting and CC... For being mounted, they are still seperate models that are on the same mount. One model becomes T4 with three wounds, another model on the same base also becomes T4 and three wounds. Whenever there is an instance of mulitple models being affected, then all the models that can be affected are affected. If they are targeted by something that can only hit one model at a time, you randomize it just like the BRB says.

We need to knock off this whole "but the BRB only talks about one model... we dont know what to do about two...". These rules have been and always will be adaptable in these scenarios, certainly more-so than 40K, and we are given an oppurtunity to really hash this out and keep it from becoming a problem. Just think outside the box and the answer will smack you right in the gob.

+1

These are two seperate models.

The issue is that they are not two separate models. The rest of your post is predicated on this false premise. They are one model that is the issue.

They are two seperate models because the Army book illustrates what to do with them when they are no longer mounted.

Which implies that they are NOT two models BEFORE they are no longer mounted, otherwise they would not BECOME two models when their mount dies.

So whatever happens, they are one model. Right?
Or it differs from eagle to dragon? And I guess that only one of two shoots right?
Or does this differ from dragon to eagle?

Yeah currently we have two distinct riders for a Monster and this doesn't cause any real issues as we have rules for how to treat multiple models on one base in this case. But on an Eagle they're Montrous Cav and we have no rules or permission to treat that as anything more than 1 model. Yes its dumb and treating them as if they were on two separate Eagles on the same base seems to solve most of the issues though.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
They are two seperate models because the Army book illustrates what to do with them when they are no longer mounted.

Find me a rule that explains how to target two MC riders. The BRB specifically states that you use one profile for MC. This raises the whole thing of, what happens when these two models become MC.

And, whilst the two models on one base thing would solve most of the issues, it raises another. Who gets hit? Do they all get hit? That kinda negates their whole thing of 'we die if you don't kill us both'. Or does one of them get hit? If so, how do you determine which one?

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Which implies that they are NOT two models BEFORE they are no longer mounted, otherwise they would not BECOME two models when their mount dies.

you make no sense... when a monster and a rider join up, they become two models on one base and are randomized for the point of targeting... how is that any different other than one being a monster and the other being infantry?

you can use the same formula here folks... its not hard...

when a rider joins a monstrous cav mount, they take on the toughness and wounds characteristic of that model. Here you have two riders joining one model... again, other than what attachment you have to ONE MODEL... what difference is there? stop trying to rules hack... When they are mounted on the dragon, you roll to see if you hit the dragon or the riders... if you hit the riders then you randomize between the two of them... easy peasy...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
They are two seperate models because the Army book illustrates what to do with them when they are no longer mounted.

Find me a rule that explains how to target two MC riders. The BRB specifically states that you use one profile for MC. This raises the whole thing of, what happens when these two models become MC.

And, whilst the two models on one base thing would solve most of the issues, it raises another. Who gets hit? Do they all get hit? That kinda negates their whole thing of 'we die if you don't kill us both'. Or does one of them get hit? If so, how do you determine which one?

You dont need a rule because its already there, you are just over thinking it...

you randomize it unless its a template or the model doing the shooting has sniper... even then, according to the rules that govern a cannon firing you still cannot kill both girls at one time as they are represented on one base, you can only hit one model per rank. That still can be solved by randomization... roll a dice... 50% chance of killing either of them... fire another cannon... oops, killed the other one... thats not as scary as everyone os making it out to be...

the sky is not falling... the rules are there, just stop being so one-dimensional

Really confused. So..it's clear that the model gets the eagle's # of wounds...and if all wounds are lost..everyone is dead? O_o

Just talking RAW here...as they are just MC, they become one model.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Which implies that they are NOT two models BEFORE they are no longer mounted, otherwise they would not BECOME two models when their mount dies.

you make no sense... when a monster and a rider join up, they become two models on one base and are randomized for the point of targeting... how is that any different other than one being a monster and the other being infantry?

you can use the same formula here folks... its not hard...

when a rider joins a monstrous cav mount, they take on the toughness and wounds characteristic of that model. Here you have two riders joining one model... again, other than what attachment you have to ONE MODEL... what difference is there? stop trying to rules hack... When they are mounted on the dragon, you roll to see if you hit the dragon or the riders... if you hit the riders then you randomize between the two of them... easy peasy...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
They are two seperate models because the Army book illustrates what to do with them when they are no longer mounted.

Find me a rule that explains how to target two MC riders. The BRB specifically states that you use one profile for MC. This raises the whole thing of, what happens when these two models become MC.

And, whilst the two models on one base thing would solve most of the issues, it raises another. Who gets hit? Do they all get hit? That kinda negates their whole thing of 'we die if you don't kill us both'. Or does one of them get hit? If so, how do you determine which one?

You dont need a rule because its already there, you are just over thinking it...

you randomize it unless its a template or the model doing the shooting has sniper... even then, according to the rules that govern a cannon firing you still cannot kill both girls at one time as they are represented on one base, you can only hit one model per rank. That still can be solved by randomization... roll a dice... 50% chance of killing either of them... fire another cannon... oops, killed the other one... thats not as scary as everyone os making it out to be...

the sky is not falling... the rules are there, just stop being so one-dimensional

+1

Where do you get your permission to randomize hits from? They aren't ridden monsters if riding an eagle, just MC...

Actual rules please, not HYWPI.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
They are two seperate models because the Army book illustrates what to do with them when they are no longer mounted.

Find me a rule that explains how to target two MC riders. The BRB specifically states that you use one profile for MC. This raises the whole thing of, what happens when these two models become MC.

And, whilst the two models on one base thing would solve most of the issues, it raises another. Who gets hit? Do they all get hit? That kinda negates their whole thing of 'we die if you don't kill us both'. Or does one of them get hit? If so, how do you determine which one?

You dont need a rule because its already there, you are just over thinking it...

you randomize it unless its a template or the model doing the shooting has sniper... even then, according to the rules that govern a cannon firing you still cannot kill both girls at one time as they are represented on one base, you can only hit one model per rank. That still can be solved by randomization... roll a dice... 50% chance of killing either of them... fire another cannon... oops, killed the other one... thats not as scary as everyone os making it out to be...

the sky is not falling... the rules are there, just stop being so one-dimensional

No. The rule isn't.

It's like this.

Mount them on MB, they become MC.

MC states that you use a single profile.

We have rules for them as a separate model after they're mounted.

Not whilst they're mounted.

This means, as per the rulebook, when mounted, they are treated as a single model.

So. When hitting MC with a cannon, they all get hit. As they are a single model.

Stop making rules up to prove a point.

^

I fully agree with this - double-checked and can't see anything that disagrees with it in the rules.

End of the line: never, ever put those guys on an eagle.

The MC rules don't say that at all actually

What they do say, is that the rider has a set of stats and the mount has a set of stats. You do not use the toughness or wounds of the mount but that of the rider. This joins them to make a single model. Now, in this instance you have two characters mounting one beast, each character with their own stats. The only thing you are given permission to negate is their wounds as they gain one more for beat on beast cav, not normal cav. Everything else remains the same. Which means you are trying to make them (the sisters) into one model. You do not have permission for this. When naestra gets on the eagle, they become one model. When Abraham gets on the eagle, they become one model. Now you are still in compliance with rules, but you are confused because how can two separate models be represented by one model... It's super easy, just like the monster mounts do, except that you have two characters instead of a character and a monster. So what happens when you have two characters together? In the rule book it actually states that the owning player gets tow choose who takes the wound, as long as wounds are distributed evenly when they are recieved. So what rules am I making up?

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
The MC rules don't say that at all actually

What they do say, is that the rider has a set of stats and the mount has a set of stats. You do not use the toughness or wounds of the mount but that of the rider. This joins them to make a single model. Now, in this instance you have two characters mounting one beast, each character with their own stats. The only thing you are given permission to negate is their wounds as they gain one more for beat on beast cav, not normal cav. Everything else remains the same. Which means you are trying to make them (the sisters) into one model. You do not have permission for this. When naestra gets on the eagle, they become one model. When Abraham gets on the eagle, they become one model. Now you are still in compliance with rules, but you are confused because how can two separate models be represented by one model... It's super easy, just like the monster mounts do, except that you have two characters instead of a character and a monster. So what happens when you have two characters together? In the rule book it actually states that the owning player gets tow choose who takes the wound, as long as wounds are distributed evenly when they are recieved. So what rules am I making up?

But we don't randomise against MC. We randomise against Chariots and ridden monsters. This means as far as cannons are concerned, they are ONE model. Therefore, they all get hit.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
The MC rules don't say that at all actually

What they do say, is that the rider has a set of stats and the mount has a set of stats. You do not use the toughness or wounds of the mount but that of the rider. This joins them to make a single model. Now, in this instance you have two characters mounting one beast, each character with their own stats. The only thing you are given permission to negate is their wounds as they gain one more for beat on beast cav, not normal cav. Everything else remains the same. Which means you are trying to make them (the sisters) into one model. You do not have permission for this. When naestra gets on the eagle, they become one model. When Abraham gets on the eagle, they become one model. Now you are still in compliance with rules, but you are confused because how can two separate models be represented by one model... It's super easy, just like the monster mounts do, except that you have two characters instead of a character and a monster. So what happens when you have two characters together? In the rule book it actually states that the owning player gets tow choose who takes the wound, as long as wounds are distributed evenly when they are recieved. So what rules am I making up?

Quote the rules or leave the discussion. YMDC is used for RAW, not HYWPI. If riding an eagle, they become a single MC.

p. 105 tells you the rules about Monstrous Cavalry mounts and it tells you that "the whole model is treated as having the troop type monstrous cavalry and follows all the rules for both characters and monstrous cavalry models". It EXPLICITELY tells you that "It's worth noting that the rules for Ridden Monsters DO NOT apply to monstrous cavalry mounts - they are two distinct troop types". This exactly makes your entire post void as the BRB tells you exactly that you may NOT randomize any hits taken.

The rules for MC then tell you that the only difference to normal cavalry is that you gain Stomp, Monstrous Ranks and always use the highest amount of wounds of all profiles (p.83).

End of the story: put them on an eagle, they become a single MC, lose 3 wounds, everyone dies. Don't put them on an eagle, that'd be a huge waste of points.

Your turn, quote the rules.

As most people here are right, what we hope is a FAQ which makes an exception for this due to fluff and the special rules of the special characters. Till then playing them on an eagle is a waste. As is playing them on a dragon.

 Sigvatr wrote:

p. 105 tells you the rules about Monstrous Cavalry mounts and it tells you that "the whole model is treated as having the troop type monstrous cavalry and follows all the rules for both characters and monstrous cavalry models". It EXPLICITELY tells you that "It's worth noting that the rules for Ridden Monsters DO NOT apply to monstrous cavalry mounts - they are two distinct troop types". This exactly makes your entire post void as the BRB tells you exactly that you may NOT randomize any hits taken.

Your turn, quote the rules.

Don't randomize as per monster and rider, randomize a per firing at a unit with a character and less than 5 rank and file (just like when you fire at my Vampire Lord and the BSB once the rest of the unit is dead).
Monstrous Cav rules as stated in the BRB are referring to a single rider.
The twins are a hero choice which is 2 characters.

-Matt

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

p. 105 tells you the rules about Monstrous Cavalry mounts and it tells you that "the whole model is treated as having the troop type monstrous cavalry and follows all the rules for both characters and monstrous cavalry models". It EXPLICITELY tells you that "It's worth noting that the rules for Ridden Monsters DO NOT apply to monstrous cavalry mounts - they are two distinct troop types". This exactly makes your entire post void as the BRB tells you exactly that you may NOT randomize any hits taken.

Your turn, quote the rules.

Don't randomize as per monster and rider, randomize a per firing at a unit with a character and less than 5 rank and file (just like when you fire at my Vampire Lord and the BSB once the rest of the unit is dead).
Monstrous Cav rules as stated in the BRB are referring to a single rider.
The twins are a hero choice which is 2 characters.

-Matt

Quote the rule for two characters on the same mount please. I'll wait.

Also you randomise between models and there's only 1 model so you randomise 1-3 hits Arahan & Neastra then 4-6 hits Neastra & Arahan...

 FlingitNow wrote:
Also you randomise between models and there's only 1 model so you randomise 1-3 hits Arahan & Neastra then 4-6 hits Neastra & Arahan...

Exactly. And they both hit the eagle.

The only way I could think of it working are them being a T4 4 wound model on an eagle with no ward save. That means that conjoined destiny has a minute chance of working, and the fact that they're two models is represented.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
The MC rules don't say that at all actually

What they do say, is that the rider has a set of stats and the mount has a set of stats. You do not use the toughness or wounds of the mount but that of the rider. This joins them to make a single model. Now, in this instance you have two characters mounting one beast, each character with their own stats. The only thing you are given permission to negate is their wounds as they gain one more for beat on beast cav, not normal cav. Everything else remains the same. Which means you are trying to make them (the sisters) into one model. You do not have permission for this. When naestra gets on the eagle, they become one model. When Abraham gets on the eagle, they become one model. Now you are still in compliance with rules, but you are confused because how can two separate models be represented by one model... It's super easy, just like the monster mounts do, except that you have two characters instead of a character and a monster. So what happens when you have two characters together? In the rule book it actually states that the owning player gets tow choose who takes the wound, as long as wounds are distributed evenly when they are recieved. So what rules am I making up?

Quote the rules or leave the discussion. YMDC is used for RAW, not HYWPI. If riding an eagle, they become a single MC.

p. 105 tells you the rules about Monstrous Cavalry mounts and it tells you that "the whole model is treated as having the troop type monstrous cavalry and follows all the rules for both characters and monstrous cavalry models". It EXPLICITELY tells you that "It's worth noting that the rules for Ridden Monsters DO NOT apply to monstrous cavalry mounts - they are two distinct troop types". This exactly makes your entire post void as the BRB tells you exactly that you may NOT randomize any hits taken.

The rules for MC then tell you that the only difference to normal cavalry is that you gain Stomp, Monstrous Ranks and always use the highest amount of wounds of all profiles (p.83).

End of the story: put them on an eagle, they become a single MC, lose 3 wounds, everyone dies. Don't put them on an eagle, that'd be a huge waste of points.

Your turn, quote the rules.

First off, make me leave... get a MOD in here or whatever because you know I am quoting the rules you just want me to give you a page number, but the fact of the matter is, I dont have them memorized. Go ahead, go get one, I'll wait right here while you pull this schoolyard nonsense.

But I'll go ahead and take a whack it, naturally.

YMDC means exactly HWYPI, ya git! Thats the whole point of this forum, to argue until a resolution can be made. Your point of it being RAW vs. RAI is exactly that. You just dont want to accept the fact that you are playing a FANTASY GAME!!!!! where imagination is needed sometimes. You want to play rules as written? I bet you arent going to give someone crap if they dont have a citadel plastic forest, otherwise they cant use the forests for wood elves because guess what? Thats what rules as written say... are we done with the whole RAW? good... moving on!

Page 105 does not invalidate anything I said because you arent reading what I've read, you are extrapolating some SWAG and assuming thats what I mean. I am simply using ridden monsters as a relational point in order to understand the concept of having multiple models represented on one base. For a ridden monster model, you have two different stats representing one model... PLEASE DISREGARD AND USE YOUR IMAGINATION FOR A SECOND WHILE I EXPLAIN!!!! This is the relation... Just like you have a monster and a character represented on one model, you can also have two characters represented on one model... it is suuuuuuper easy and doesnt really take any amount of confusion.

Now you are going to say "show me where in the rules where it says to do that..." and I would tell you "that there is no explicit paragraph that describes having two characters on one mount", but there are rules on having two characters in one unit. That is described starting on page 96. It says that characters effectively become part of the unit and are indistinguishable apart from having seperate stats, as you cannot single characters out unless you have a rule that allows you to do so. But because of the cav rules we have to pressume that these characters are simply making a unit with each other represented by one model. *GASP* just like I illustrated earlier about ridden monsters. The difference being here is that the hits are not randomized at anything, because thats what it says on page 98 when shooting at characters when there are less than 5 models in a rank to protect them. The owning player gets to choose who takes wounds as long as the wounds are distributed evenly, meaning you cant put three wounds on one and then starting putting wounds on the other, you have to put one and one, two and two, three and three, so the model can take 5 wounds before it actually dies due to their special rule that brings them back.

those are the rules that I am quoting to explain my point... now you can broaden you mind and accept the fact that people are still going to play these characters even without a proper faq, or you can go ahead and continue to be narrow minded and squack like a parroting drone about "RAW!!! RAWWWW!!!"

polly want a cracker?

 WarlordRob117 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
The MC rules don't say that at all actually

What they do say, is that the rider has a set of stats and the mount has a set of stats. You do not use the toughness or wounds of the mount but that of the rider. This joins them to make a single model. Now, in this instance you have two characters mounting one beast, each character with their own stats. The only thing you are given permission to negate is their wounds as they gain one more for beat on beast cav, not normal cav. Everything else remains the same. Which means you are trying to make them (the sisters) into one model. You do not have permission for this. When naestra gets on the eagle, they become one model. When Abraham gets on the eagle, they become one model. Now you are still in compliance with rules, but you are confused because how can two separate models be represented by one model... It's super easy, just like the monster mounts do, except that you have two characters instead of a character and a monster. So what happens when you have two characters together? In the rule book it actually states that the owning player gets tow choose who takes the wound, as long as wounds are distributed evenly when they are recieved. So what rules am I making up?

Quote the rules or leave the discussion. YMDC is used for RAW, not HYWPI. If riding an eagle, they become a single MC.

p. 105 tells you the rules about Monstrous Cavalry mounts and it tells you that "the whole model is treated as having the troop type monstrous cavalry and follows all the rules for both characters and monstrous cavalry models". It EXPLICITELY tells you that "It's worth noting that the rules for Ridden Monsters DO NOT apply to monstrous cavalry mounts - they are two distinct troop types". This exactly makes your entire post void as the BRB tells you exactly that you may NOT randomize any hits taken.

The rules for MC then tell you that the only difference to normal cavalry is that you gain Stomp, Monstrous Ranks and always use the highest amount of wounds of all profiles (p.83).

End of the story: put them on an eagle, they become a single MC, lose 3 wounds, everyone dies. Don't put them on an eagle, that'd be a huge waste of points.

Your turn, quote the rules.

First off, make me leave... get a MOD in here or whatever because you know I am quoting the rules you just want me to give you a page number, but the fact of the matter is, I dont have them memorized. Go ahead, go get one, I'll wait right here while you pull this schoolyard nonsense.

But I'll go ahead and take a whack it, naturally.

YMDC means exactly HWYPI, ya git! Thats the whole point of this forum, to argue until a resolution can be made. Your point of it being RAW vs. RAI is exactly that. You just dont want to accept the fact that you are playing a FANTASY GAME!!!!! where imagination is needed sometimes. You want to play rules as written? I bet you arent going to give someone crap if they dont have a citadel plastic forest, otherwise they cant use the forests for wood elves because guess what? Thats what rules as written say... are we done with the whole RAW? good... moving on!

Page 105 does not invalidate anything I said because you arent reading what I've read, you are extrapolating some SWAG and assuming thats what I mean. I am simply using ridden monsters as a relational point in order to understand the concept of having multiple models represented on one base. For a ridden monster model, you have two different stats representing one model... PLEASE DISREGARD AND USE YOUR IMAGINATION FOR A SECOND WHILE I EXPLAIN!!!! This is the relation... Just like you have a monster and a character represented on one model, you can also have two characters represented on one model... it is suuuuuuper easy and doesnt really take any amount of confusion.

Now you are going to say "show me where in the rules where it says to do that..." and I would tell you "that there is no explicit paragraph that describes having two characters on one mount", but there are rules on having two characters in one unit. That is described starting on page 96. It says that characters effectively become part of the unit and are indistinguishable apart from having seperate stats, as you cannot single characters out unless you have a rule that allows you to do so. But because of the cav rules we have to pressume that these characters are simply making a unit with each other represented by one model. *GASP* just like I illustrated earlier about ridden monsters. The difference being here is that the hits are not randomized at anything, because thats what it says on page 98 when shooting at characters when there are less than 5 models in a rank to protect them. The owning player gets to choose who takes wounds as long as the wounds are distributed evenly, meaning you cant put three wounds on one and then starting putting wounds on the other, you have to put one and one, two and two, three and three, so the model can take 5 wounds before it actually dies due to their special rule that brings them back.

those are the rules that I am quoting to explain my point... now you can broaden you mind and accept the fact that people are still going to play these characters even without a proper faq, or you can go ahead and continue to be narrow minded and squack like a parroting drone about "RAW!!! RAWWWW!!!"

polly want a cracker?

So. Your entire post is summed up as follows:

Imagination trumps rules.

That's not what this forum is about.

There are no rules for two characters on the same mount. Therefore we follow the rules for characters as MC. They are treated as a single model. As I said, the simplest thing is to make it a 4W T4 model. The bottom line is this. A cannon hits ALL of them.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

p. 105 tells you the rules about Monstrous Cavalry mounts and it tells you that "the whole model is treated as having the troop type monstrous cavalry and follows all the rules for both characters and monstrous cavalry models". It EXPLICITELY tells you that "It's worth noting that the rules for Ridden Monsters DO NOT apply to monstrous cavalry mounts - they are two distinct troop types". This exactly makes your entire post void as the BRB tells you exactly that you may NOT randomize any hits taken.

Your turn, quote the rules.

Don't randomize as per monster and rider, randomize a per firing at a unit with a character and less than 5 rank and file (just like when you fire at my Vampire Lord and the BSB once the rest of the unit is dead).
Monstrous Cav rules as stated in the BRB are referring to a single rider.
The twins are a hero choice which is 2 characters.

-Matt

Quote the rule for two characters on the same mount please. I'll wait.

That's one is easy. It's page 59 of the wood wood elf book. Naestra and Arahan are Troop type Special Character.
Similar rules are in the O&G book for Grom, Nibblit and his chariot.
1 mount, 2 characters.

-Matt

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
The MC rules don't say that at all actually

What they do say, is that the rider has a set of stats and the mount has a set of stats. You do not use the toughness or wounds of the mount but that of the rider. This joins them to make a single model. Now, in this instance you have two characters mounting one beast, each character with their own stats. The only thing you are given permission to negate is their wounds as they gain one more for beat on beast cav, not normal cav. Everything else remains the same. Which means you are trying to make them (the sisters) into one model. You do not have permission for this. When naestra gets on the eagle, they become one model. When Abraham gets on the eagle, they become one model. Now you are still in compliance with rules, but you are confused because how can two separate models be represented by one model... It's super easy, just like the monster mounts do, except that you have two characters instead of a character and a monster. So what happens when you have two characters together? In the rule book it actually states that the owning player gets tow choose who takes the wound, as long as wounds are distributed evenly when they are recieved. So what rules am I making up?

Quote the rules or leave the discussion. YMDC is used for RAW, not HYWPI. If riding an eagle, they become a single MC.

p. 105 tells you the rules about Monstrous Cavalry mounts and it tells you that "the whole model is treated as having the troop type monstrous cavalry and follows all the rules for both characters and monstrous cavalry models". It EXPLICITELY tells you that "It's worth noting that the rules for Ridden Monsters DO NOT apply to monstrous cavalry mounts - they are two distinct troop types". This exactly makes your entire post void as the BRB tells you exactly that you may NOT randomize any hits taken.

The rules for MC then tell you that the only difference to normal cavalry is that you gain Stomp, Monstrous Ranks and always use the highest amount of wounds of all profiles (p.83).

End of the story: put them on an eagle, they become a single MC, lose 3 wounds, everyone dies. Don't put them on an eagle, that'd be a huge waste of points.

Your turn, quote the rules.

First off, make me leave... get a MOD in here or whatever because you know I am quoting the rules you just want me to give you a page number, but the fact of the matter is, I dont have them memorized. Go ahead, go get one, I'll wait right here while you pull this schoolyard nonsense.

But I'll go ahead and take a whack it, naturally.

YMDC means exactly HWYPI, ya git! Thats the whole point of this forum, to argue until a resolution can be made. Your point of it being RAW vs. RAI is exactly that. You just dont want to accept the fact that you are playing a FANTASY GAME!!!!! where imagination is needed sometimes. You want to play rules as written? I bet you arent going to give someone crap if they dont have a citadel plastic forest, otherwise they cant use the forests for wood elves because guess what? Thats what rules as written say... are we done with the whole RAW? good... moving on!

Page 105 does not invalidate anything I said because you arent reading what I've read, you are extrapolating some SWAG and assuming thats what I mean. I am simply using ridden monsters as a relational point in order to understand the concept of having multiple models represented on one base. For a ridden monster model, you have two different stats representing one model... PLEASE DISREGARD AND USE YOUR IMAGINATION FOR A SECOND WHILE I EXPLAIN!!!! This is the relation... Just like you have a monster and a character represented on one model, you can also have two characters represented on one model... it is suuuuuuper easy and doesnt really take any amount of confusion.

Now you are going to say "show me where in the rules where it says to do that..." and I would tell you "that there is no explicit paragraph that describes having two characters on one mount", but there are rules on having two characters in one unit. That is described starting on page 96. It says that characters effectively become part of the unit and are indistinguishable apart from having seperate stats, as you cannot single characters out unless you have a rule that allows you to do so. But because of the cav rules we have to pressume that these characters are simply making a unit with each other represented by one model. *GASP* just like I illustrated earlier about ridden monsters. The difference being here is that the hits are not randomized at anything, because thats what it says on page 98 when shooting at characters when there are less than 5 models in a rank to protect them. The owning player gets to choose who takes wounds as long as the wounds are distributed evenly, meaning you cant put three wounds on one and then starting putting wounds on the other, you have to put one and one, two and two, three and three, so the model can take 5 wounds before it actually dies due to their special rule that brings them back.

those are the rules that I am quoting to explain my point... now you can broaden you mind and accept the fact that people are still going to play these characters even without a proper faq, or you can go ahead and continue to be narrow minded and squack like a parroting drone about "RAW!!! RAWWWW!!!"

polly want a cracker?

So. Your entire post is summed up as follows:

Imagination trumps rules.

That's not what this forum is about.

There are no rules for two characters on the same mount. Therefore we follow the rules for characters as MC. They are treated as a single model. As I said, the simplest thing is to make it a 4W T4 model. The bottom line is this. A cannon hits ALL of them.

You dont even know the rules yourself and you're telling me how it is? What do the rules for MC say about toughness and wounds? because I can tell you that you that you are wrong about everything you've said, mainly about the sisters becoming toughness 4. Where are you getting 4 wounds from? you arent combining the sisters, they are still two seperate profiles, two seperate targets represented on one model.

There is a FaQ that means Monstrous Cav take toughness as well as wounds from highest value. They are definitely T4 on the Eagle it is just whether they have 3 wounds or 6.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:


those are the rules that I am quoting to explain my point... now you can broaden you mind and accept the fact that people are still going to play these characters even without a proper faq, or you can go ahead and continue to be narrow minded and squack like a parroting drone about "RAW!!! RAWWWW!!!"

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Games Workshop are easily spoofed and are notorious for being inconsistent and so should not be relied on.

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations.

7. Do not bring The Most Important Rule (TMIR) into these rules discussions. While it is something you should most certainly abide by while playing (if you're not having fun, why ARE you playing?), it does not apply to rules debates.

You purposefully break the rules of YMDC and spread downright false information refusing (!) to look up the rules.

And yes, I do hope a mod takes care of this.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
The MC rules don't say that at all actually

What they do say, is that the rider has a set of stats and the mount has a set of stats. You do not use the toughness or wounds of the mount but that of the rider. This joins them to make a single model. Now, in this instance you have two characters mounting one beast, each character with their own stats. The only thing you are given permission to negate is their wounds as they gain one more for beat on beast cav, not normal cav. Everything else remains the same. Which means you are trying to make them (the sisters) into one model. You do not have permission for this. When naestra gets on the eagle, they become one model. When Abraham gets on the eagle, they become one model. Now you are still in compliance with rules, but you are confused because how can two separate models be represented by one model... It's super easy, just like the monster mounts do, except that you have two characters instead of a character and a monster. So what happens when you have two characters together? In the rule book it actually states that the owning player gets tow choose who takes the wound, as long as wounds are distributed evenly when they are recieved. So what rules am I making up?

Quote the rules or leave the discussion. YMDC is used for RAW, not HYWPI. If riding an eagle, they become a single MC.

p. 105 tells you the rules about Monstrous Cavalry mounts and it tells you that "the whole model is treated as having the troop type monstrous cavalry and follows all the rules for both characters and monstrous cavalry models". It EXPLICITELY tells you that "It's worth noting that the rules for Ridden Monsters DO NOT apply to monstrous cavalry mounts - they are two distinct troop types". This exactly makes your entire post void as the BRB tells you exactly that you may NOT randomize any hits taken.

The rules for MC then tell you that the only difference to normal cavalry is that you gain Stomp, Monstrous Ranks and always use the highest amount of wounds of all profiles (p.83).

End of the story: put them on an eagle, they become a single MC, lose 3 wounds, everyone dies. Don't put them on an eagle, that'd be a huge waste of points.

Your turn, quote the rules.

First off, make me leave... get a MOD in here or whatever because you know I am quoting the rules you just want me to give you a page number, but the fact of the matter is, I dont have them memorized. Go ahead, go get one, I'll wait right here while you pull this schoolyard nonsense.

But I'll go ahead and take a whack it, naturally.

YMDC means exactly HWYPI, ya git! Thats the whole point of this forum, to argue until a resolution can be made. Your point of it being RAW vs. RAI is exactly that. You just dont want to accept the fact that you are playing a FANTASY GAME!!!!! where imagination is needed sometimes. You want to play rules as written? I bet you arent going to give someone crap if they dont have a citadel plastic forest, otherwise they cant use the forests for wood elves because guess what? Thats what rules as written say... are we done with the whole RAW? good... moving on!

Page 105 does not invalidate anything I said because you arent reading what I've read, you are extrapolating some SWAG and assuming thats what I mean. I am simply using ridden monsters as a relational point in order to understand the concept of having multiple models represented on one base. For a ridden monster model, you have two different stats representing one model... PLEASE DISREGARD AND USE YOUR IMAGINATION FOR A SECOND WHILE I EXPLAIN!!!! This is the relation... Just like you have a monster and a character represented on one model, you can also have two characters represented on one model... it is suuuuuuper easy and doesnt really take any amount of confusion.

Now you are going to say "show me where in the rules where it says to do that..." and I would tell you "that there is no explicit paragraph that describes having two characters on one mount", but there are rules on having two characters in one unit. That is described starting on page 96. It says that characters effectively become part of the unit and are indistinguishable apart from having seperate stats, as you cannot single characters out unless you have a rule that allows you to do so. But because of the cav rules we have to pressume that these characters are simply making a unit with each other represented by one model. *GASP* just like I illustrated earlier about ridden monsters. The difference being here is that the hits are not randomized at anything, because thats what it says on page 98 when shooting at characters when there are less than 5 models in a rank to protect them. The owning player gets to choose who takes wounds as long as the wounds are distributed evenly, meaning you cant put three wounds on one and then starting putting wounds on the other, you have to put one and one, two and two, three and three, so the model can take 5 wounds before it actually dies due to their special rule that brings them back.

those are the rules that I am quoting to explain my point... now you can broaden you mind and accept the fact that people are still going to play these characters even without a proper faq, or you can go ahead and continue to be narrow minded and squack like a parroting drone about "RAW!!! RAWWWW!!!"

polly want a cracker?

So. Your entire post is summed up as follows:

Imagination trumps rules.

That's not what this forum is about.

There are no rules for two characters on the same mount. Therefore we follow the rules for characters as MC. They are treated as a single model. As I said, the simplest thing is to make it a 4W T4 model. The bottom line is this. A cannon hits ALL of them.

You dont even know the rules yourself and you're telling me how it is? What do the rules for MC say about toughness and wounds? because I can tell you that you that you are wrong about everything you've said, mainly about the sisters becoming toughness 4. Where are you getting 4 wounds from? you arent combining the sisters, they are still two seperate profiles, two seperate targets represented on one model.

The rules for MC say that you use the highest profile. One. Not profiles. Profile.

Therefore. One unit. And as per the rules for MC, single target. As per the rules on P. 83, you use the cavalry rules. And the cavalry rules state that they're treated as a single model.

Allow me to emphasise, READ YOUR RULEBOOK.

Highest profile for wounds, not toughness...

perhaps you should read your rulebook.

And yes it does say to use both profiles... you dont just attack with the character or the mount you get to attack with both which is why they are there... perhaps you should read your rulebook...

Sure you treat them as one model, with multiple profiles, just like you would with a character riding a monster is one model but multiple profiles... read your rulebook...

I think we're done here

Highest profile for wounds, not toughness... 

perhaps you should read your rulebook. 

Seriously? Please read what's been written it will stop you repeating stuff that has already been proven incorrect

Guys just agree that you disagree. Someone is right, and someone is wrong. Just let it go and wait for a FAQ. There is no point in arguing.
The rules here should have been different due to the speciality of the characters. Changing their mount does make sense to change the rules of the character due to RAW. It does not make sense that on the dragon they have their rules and on the eagle they don't. It needed an explanation on how it will work.
Once again everything show us that They never play test what they release.

The term "agree to disagree" is used when each side has an opinion on an issue but can't come to a common result.

In this case, however, WarlordRob117 is purposefully spreading misinformation and downright wrong. This is YMDC where the aim is to get the right solution to a problem. Sometimes, there is no "right" and you agree to disagree.

In this case, however, there is only one correct answer:

If mounted on an eagle, they become one single model. No random wound allocation, no seperation of mount and rider - nothing.

I've already given page numbers that prove Warlord wrong. He is just arguing against the BRB.

I love people who just say their right about something they didnt create, meanwhile people are trying to give examples of educated ways of actually deciphering this mess...

At this rate, fantasy will be no better than 40K with you guys and your one-dimensional thinking.

I havent made anything up, I have quoted pages a rules to support my theory, but you just want to chalk it up to making up stuff as you go along (toughness 4 model with 4 wounds bahahaha)... Im not arguing against the BRB, I'm using the BRB to determine what this unit is in a way that is congruent with all the rules given.

You have only proven that you guys are so stuck on the literal definition that according to your RAW interpretation, you cant even play the character because there are no rules to support it... this is not true...

Sigh.

1. Read the forum rules.

2. Before posting in YMDC, read the Tennets of YMDC.

3. Check if you always used actual rule quotations to back your points up.

4. Check if you followed the tennets.

5. Click "Submit".

 WarlordRob117 wrote:


You have only proven that you guys are so stuck on the literal definition that according to your RAW interpretation[...]

Read this. If you don't understand basic concepts, don't post.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

A Few Definitions

For those who haven't seen these terms before.

Rules As Written - This refers to playing by the strict letter of the rules, which can lead to odd or counterintuitive situations.

How You Would Play It - This refers to taking small liberties with the rules to smooth out the odd or counterintuitive situations listed above.

...and now, again, for those who still look for the correct answer to the OP:

If riding an eagle, they become a single MC.

p. 105 tells you the rules about Monstrous Cavalry mounts and it tells you that "the whole model is treated as having the troop type monstrous cavalry and follows all the rules for both characters and monstrous cavalry models". It EXPLICITELY tells you that "It's worth noting that the rules for Ridden Monsters DO NOT apply to monstrous cavalry mounts - they are two distinct troop types". This exactly makes your entire post void as the BRB tells you exactly that you may NOT randomize any hits taken.

The rules for MC then tell you that the only difference to normal cavalry is that you gain Stomp, Monstrous Ranks and always use the highest amount of wounds of all profiles (p.83).

End of the story: put them on an eagle, they become a single MC, lose 3 wounds, everyone dies. Don't put them on an eagle, that'd be a huge waste of points.

It wouldn't be the first time GW created a rule that just simply does nothing in certain situations.

The worst part is that it does not even do nothing, it makes the characters a lot worse as it's pretty easy to take the eagle out and your enemy basically gets 2 dead characters for the price of one giant eagle...

Good point.

So, let me rephrase:

It wouldn't be the first time that GW created a unit that is absolutely worthless for the points it costs because of poorly designed rules. (For a recent example, look at the new version of the Dwarf Anvil of Doom. 300+ points of wothlessness.)

 Sigvatr wrote:
The worst part is that it does not even do nothing, it makes the characters a lot worse as it's pretty easy to take the eagle out and your enemy basically gets 2 dead characters for the price of one giant eagle...

Thats how you read the rules... Had a game last night where I explained said RAW according to you and everyone looked at me like I had two heads... even let them read your conclusion and they still couldnt wrap their head around it.

When I demonstrated, using the rules I quoted for my example and my interpretation of the RAW, it was done in such a manner to which everything fell in line and there were no issues... they survived two turns of empire shooting before they were finally brought down, resilient, but not unkillable...

In your interpretation, you are ignoring rules that the sisters come with, which you do not have permission to do. Since we are so stuck on permissions, and what the rulebook allows and disallows, now what do you do apart from not playing the characters at all?

(And I humored you and read the tenets again... I did nothing out of character... try again)

 WarlordRob117 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
The worst part is that it does not even do nothing, it makes the characters a lot worse as it's pretty easy to take the eagle out and your enemy basically gets 2 dead characters for the price of one giant eagle...

Thats how you read the rules... Had a game last night where I explained said RAW according to you and everyone looked at me like I had two heads... even let them read your conclusion and they still couldnt wrap their head around it.

When I demonstrated, using the rules I quoted for my example and my interpretation of the RAW, it was done in such a manner to which everything fell in line and there were no issues... they survived two turns of empire shooting before they were finally brought down, resilient, but not unkillable...

In your interpretation, you are ignoring rules that the sisters come with, which you do not have permission to do. Since we are so stuck on permissions, and what the rulebook allows and disallows, now what do you do apart from not playing the characters at all?

(And I humored you and read the tenets again... I did nothing out of character... try again)

But you haven't quoted any relevant rules?

You've stated that they have rules for being two separate characters after they dismount, which is true. They're two infantry models. You're right up to here.

Where you go wrong is that you say they're two characters on a single mount. If this was the case, then they can't even be fielded. As there are no rules for this. So, they have no choice but to be treated as a single MC. Therefore, as cavalry. So they're a single model, and we use the highest Toughness and Wounds values. So a single T4 ,W3 model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
The worst part is that it does not even do nothing, it makes the characters a lot worse as it's pretty easy to take the eagle out and your enemy basically gets 2 dead characters for the price of one giant eagle...

Thats how you read the rules... Had a game last night where I explained said RAW according to you and everyone looked at me like I had two heads... even let them read your conclusion and they still couldnt wrap their head around it.

When I demonstrated, using the rules I quoted for my example and my interpretation of the RAW, it was done in such a manner to which everything fell in line and there were no issues... they survived two turns of empire shooting before they were finally brought down, resilient, but not unkillable...

In your interpretation, you are ignoring rules that the sisters come with, which you do not have permission to do. Since we are so stuck on permissions, and what the rulebook allows and disallows, now what do you do apart from not playing the characters at all?

(And I humored you and read the tenets again... I did nothing out of character... try again)

But you've said we have to follow non-existent rules for them.


Allow me to quote this in toddler's terms.

They mount a monstrous beast. > They become monstrous cavalry. > Monstrous Cavalry follow Cavalry rules. > This means they're treated as a single model, with TWO exceptions, use the highest toughness and wounds characteristic.

Quote rules or leave the thread. Period. Nobody cares for what your imaginary friends tell you. This is YMDC and the only one talking here are the rules. You got no rules to back your "posts" up, you got no justification to be part of this discussion.

 Sigvatr wrote:

If riding an eagle, they become a single MC.

p. 105 tells you the rules about Monstrous Cavalry mounts and it tells you that "the whole model is treated as having the troop type monstrous cavalry and follows all the rules for both characters and monstrous cavalry models". It EXPLICITELY tells you that "It's worth noting that the rules for Ridden Monsters DO NOT apply to monstrous cavalry mounts - they are two distinct troop types". This exactly makes your entire post void as the BRB tells you exactly that you may NOT randomize any hits taken.

The rules for MC then tell you that the only difference to normal cavalry is that you gain Stomp, Monstrous Ranks and always use the highest amount of wounds of all profiles (p.83).

End of the story: put them on an eagle, they become a single MC, lose 3 wounds, everyone dies. Don't put them on an eagle, that'd be a huge waste of points.

Staying right here a re-iterating my point... I quoted rules earlier and this isnt your damn thread...

So quit being a Please don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n ... I've made my points and I'll stick to them until a FAQ comes out... thats how I read it using the rulebook so thats how Im going to play it...

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
Staying right here a re-iterating my point... I quoted rules earlier and this isnt your damn thread...

So quit being a jack-in-the-box... I've made my points and I'll stick to them until a FAQ comes out... thats how I read it using the rulebook so thats how Im going to play it...

Precisely my point. You play your version of the rules, which is HYWPI.

I gave the RAW explanation, meaning how it must be played if you want to follow the rules.

Re-iterating:

 Sigvatr wrote:

If riding an eagle, they become a single MC.

p. 105 tells you the rules about Monstrous Cavalry mounts and it tells you that "the whole model is treated as having the troop type monstrous cavalry and follows all the rules for both characters and monstrous cavalry models". It EXPLICITELY tells you that "It's worth noting that the rules for Ridden Monsters DO NOT apply to monstrous cavalry mounts - they are two distinct troop types". This exactly makes your entire post void as the BRB tells you exactly that you may NOT randomize any hits taken.

The rules for MC then tell you that the only difference to normal cavalry is that you gain Stomp, Monstrous Ranks and always use the highest amount of wounds of all profiles (p.83).

End of the story: put them on an eagle, they become a single MC, lose 3 wounds, everyone dies. Don't put them on an eagle, that'd be a huge waste of points.

If one has nothing further that is pertinent to add then it's best to stop posting.

Just out of curiosity...
As people have asked for a rule quote allowing 2 characters on one mount and thinking this is some sort of trumph card... If the BRB does not support putting 2 characters on a mount wouldn't it be illegal to field this choice?
It is quite clear that the BRB is only considering one rider (it says "two sets of characteristics, one for the rider and one for the mount..", "We assume that the enemy always strikes at the rider...", etc).

Also... is Neastra & Arahan considered to be one character or two?
Was thinking because of this quote from the BRB ("A character and his mount are treated as a single character model for all purposes..."). If they are indeed two characters would not each be treated as "a single character model"?

Either way its pretty obvious that RAW does not even support this unit at all. So imo if you wan strict RAW this choice is illegal.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
I think they only way that makes sense is to play them both as T4 W3, and randomize hits between them.
I'm thinking though the best use is a hero slot dragon, with 6 S6 attacks, and 6 S5 armor piercing attacks (ASF), and half those S5 attacks get +1 to wound.

May I ask why they should be T4?

BRB pg 82, says:
Cavalry: Toughness and Wounds of the mount are never used.
Monstrous Cavalry: All rules for cavalry apply with one exception: The model uses the higher wound of both profiles.

(I can't literally quote it since I only have a german version for reference)
Is there some FAQ I didn't read?


@Topic the WEAB doesn't even clearly state the unit's size so the only logical thing for me would be to count the actual models.
There are two models. -> That means it is a unit of 2 charactermodels who ride a mount.

As per BRB pg 82, the rulesets for Characters as well as for Monstrous Cavalry apply.
-> (Cavalry)
Every attack is aimed at the rider (in this case a riding unit of 2).

-> (Characters in units under fire)
If a unit has less than 5 regular models (including musicians and banners but not champions) of the same type characters may be hit. The controlling player decides which models get hit, but he must assign every model a hit before the first model can be assigned a second hit... etc.

I guess that's how it could work without breaking their special rule.

Yeah they FaQ'd Monstrous Cav to use highest T as well as W.

Thanks! I can't tell whether that means the Monstrous beasts are the actual target now or they're just a meatshield for the rider.

However, that gives me an idea for HYWPI:
I'd say the eagle takes the first 3 hits with toughness 4, then the sisters get dismounted and act as a unit of 2 charactermodels who keep fighting. This is supported by the special rule in our armybook that allows them to stay on the field because they are not "worthless without their mount".

Escadin wrote:
Thanks! I can't tell whether that means the Monstrous beasts are the actual target now or they're just a meatshield for the rider.

However, that gives me an idea for HYWPI:
I'd say the eagle takes the first 3 hits with toughness 4, then the sisters get dismounted and act as a unit of 2 charactermodels + special rules as discribed in our armybook.

Why should this special character get that benefit to riding a Monstrous Beast when no other character in the game gets that? Any other character in a similar situation would die outright.

Saldiven wrote:

Escadin wrote:
Thanks! I can't tell whether that means the Monstrous beasts are the actual target now or they're just a meatshield for the rider.

However, that gives me an idea for HYWPI:
I'd say the eagle takes the first 3 hits with toughness 4, then the sisters get dismounted and act as a unit of 2 charactermodels + special rules as discribed in our armybook.

Why should this special character get that benefit to riding a Monstrous Beast when no other character in the game gets that? Any other character in a similar situation would die outright.

Just edited my post (sorry bad timing) to clearify that point. They have special rule that allows them to.

Escadin wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Escadin wrote:
Thanks! I can't tell whether that means the Monstrous beasts are the actual target now or they're just a meatshield for the rider.

However, that gives me an idea for HYWPI:
I'd say the eagle takes the first 3 hits with toughness 4, then the sisters get dismounted and act as a unit of 2 charactermodels + special rules as discribed in our armybook.

Why should this special character get that benefit to riding a Monstrous Beast when no other character in the game gets that? Any other character in a similar situation would die outright.

Just edited my post (sorry bad timing) to clearify that point. They have special rule that allows them to.

Your interpretation only works if you ignore the entire BRB description of how characters mounted on Monstrous Beasts works. Per the BRB, the beast and the character die as one.

As written, it only appears these characters get the benefit of their rule if mounted on the dragon.

Their bounded fate special rule allows them to keep fighting as an infantry unit once their mount (no choice restriction here) dies.

Escadin wrote:
Their bounded fate special rule allows them to keep fighting as an infantry unit once their mount (no choice restriction here) dies.

But, as per the rules, they die when the eagle dies. Because of them being MC.

Should their mount be slain, the sisters form a unit.

The problem, however, is that the sisters are slain at the same time as their mount is and the rule says that...

If either of the sisters is slain, do not remove the model from play unless the other sister is also slain in the same phase.

In this case we're back to what I said earlier: This monstrous beast is mounted by a unit of two characters, which is treated as a mixed (or combinded) unit with less than 5 non character/ champion models.

Thus the controlling player assignes hits caused by enemy fire with the limitation of equal distribution as per pg.99 BRB. Additionally, both models in this unit gain T4, W3 and all other MC special rules.

Edit: Pg. 104: 'The character and his mount count as one charactermodel'. That means Naeastra and the eagle is one charactermodel. Arahan is one charcatermodel with the same eagle. Hence they both die whenever the eagle dies. Whether that makes Naeastra and Arahan one charactermodel too is just guesswork. So why not stop here? If we do stpo here, they can still be a unit of 2.
That would not only allow the above, but also to target one of the 2 sisters -but not their eagle - in hand to hand combat, which sounds really RAI to me.

Oh god i hope we or they solve this asap cause i m working into making these two girls on eagle conversion and i am planning to use them.
So i pray. Ammmmmmmmmmmmmm...... whatever i ll go with spellsingers for now

Escadin wrote:
In this case we're back to what I said earlier: This monstrous beast is mounted by a unit of two characters, which is treated as a mixed (or combinded) unit with less than 5 non character/ champion models.

This is incorrect as a rider on a MC fuses with its mount and becomes a singular model. The only case where the BRB separates between rider and mount rules-wise is a ridden monster (e.g. dragon). The paragraph about says that the model follows both characters and MC rules and due to this, everyone dies when the model dies.

That's RAW, though. RAI is, as far as I can guess, that if the eagle dies, the twins keep fighting on their own.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Escadin wrote:
In this case we're back to what I said earlier: This monstrous beast is mounted by a unit of two characters, which is treated as a mixed (or combinded) unit with less than 5 non character/ champion models.

This is incorrect as a rider on a MC fuses with its mount and becomes a singular model. The only case where the BRB separates between rider and mount rules-wise is a ridden monster (e.g. dragon). The paragraph about says that the model follows both characters and MC rules and due to this, everyone dies when the model dies.

That's not what he said at all. The mount and the Rider fuse. The mount and the rider fuse. I'm not being repetitive, we have 2 riders.

Lets try another approach:
Let's say you take the dragon with the sisters.
You fire a bow at them. How do you Resolve the shooting?

-Matt

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Escadin wrote:
In this case we're back to what I said earlier: This monstrous beast is mounted by a unit of two characters, which is treated as a mixed (or combinded) unit with less than 5 non character/ champion models.

This is incorrect as a rider on a MC fuses with its mount and becomes a singular model. The only case where the BRB separates between rider and mount rules-wise is a ridden monster (e.g. dragon). The paragraph about says that the model follows both characters and MC rules and due to this, everyone dies when the model dies.

That's not what he said at all. The mount and the Rider fuse. The mount and the rider fuse. I'm not being repetitive, we have 2 riders.

Lets try another approach:
Let's say you take the dragon with the sisters.
You fire a bow at them. How do you Resolve the shooting?

-Matt

As per the rules.

The same goes for the Monstrous Cav mount.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Escadin wrote:
In this case we're back to what I said earlier: This monstrous beast is mounted by a unit of two characters, which is treated as a mixed (or combinded) unit with less than 5 non character/ champion models.

This is incorrect as a rider on a MC fuses with its mount and becomes a singular model. The only case where the BRB separates between rider and mount rules-wise is a ridden monster (e.g. dragon). The paragraph about says that the model follows both characters and MC rules and due to this, everyone dies when the model dies.

That's not what he said at all. The mount and the Rider fuse. The mount and the rider fuse. I'm not being repetitive, we have 2 riders.

Lets try another approach:
Let's say you take the dragon with the sisters.
You fire a bow at them. How do you Resolve the shooting?

-Matt

Ridden monsters with multiple riders, as per the rules on page 105, BRB?

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Escadin wrote:
In this case we're back to what I said earlier: This monstrous beast is mounted by a unit of two characters, which is treated as a mixed (or combinded) unit with less than 5 non character/ champion models.

This is incorrect as a rider on a MC fuses with its mount and becomes a singular model. The only case where the BRB separates between rider and mount rules-wise is a ridden monster (e.g. dragon). The paragraph about says that the model follows both characters and MC rules and due to this, everyone dies when the model dies.

That's not what he said at all. The mount and the Rider fuse. The mount and the rider fuse. I'm not being repetitive, we have 2 riders.

Lets try another approach:
Let's say you take the dragon with the sisters.
You fire a bow at them. How do you Resolve the shooting?

-Matt

You're making it easy.

A = Neastra
B = Arahan
C = Bird

A and B simultaneously fuse to C (it has to be simultaneous because of the way the unit is purchased in army creation). This creates a single model, ABC. They follow the rules for such a fused model as described in the BRB for Characters riding Monstrous Mounts. They use the highest Wounds and Toughness total of the various profiles, and that's it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Escadin wrote:
In this case we're back to what I said earlier: This monstrous beast is mounted by a unit of two characters, which is treated as a mixed (or combinded) unit with less than 5 non character/ champion models.

Thus the controlling player assignes hits caused by enemy fire with the limitation of equal distribution as per pg.99 BRB. Additionally, both models in this unit gain T4, W3 and all other MC special rules.

Edit: Pg. 104: 'The character and his mount count as one charactermodel'. That means Naeastra and the eagle is one charactermodel. Arahan is one charcatermodel with the same eagle. Hence they both die whenever the eagle dies. Whether that makes Naeastra and Arahan one charactermodel too is just guesswork. So why not stop here? If we do stpo here, they can still be a unit of 2.
That would not only allow the above, but also to target one of the 2 sisters -but not their eagle - in hand to hand combat, which sounds really RAI to me.

There is absolutely NOTHING in the BRB or anywhere else that indicates that your first sentence is a correct interpretation. In fact, the rule you cite contradicts the position in your first sentence.

By strict rules, they become a single model that dies in its entirety when it takes 3 unsaved wounds, and Conjoined Destiny does nothing if they're mounted on the Eagle.

My point is the rule says

A + C = AC

B + C = BC

But it doesn't say A + B = AB or AC + BC = ABC or anything like that anywhere. So just don't fuse it and you end up with a unit of 2 (AC and BC), which can be treated the way I explained above.

Saldiven wrote:

You're making it easy.

A = Neastra
B = Arahan
C = Bird

A and B simultaneously fuse to C (it has to be simultaneous because of the way the unit is purchased in army creation). This creates a single model, ABC. They follow the rules for such a fused model as described in the BRB for Characters riding Monstrous Mounts. They use the highest Wounds and Toughness total of the various profiles, and that's it.

That's a leap. RAW is that the character, and the mount fuse.
We simply don't have rules for characters and a single mount fusing. "They" use the highest wounds and toughness is in reference to "The" rider, and the mount, not the "Riders".
The only rule I can find for Simultaneous is that the player who's turn it is chooses the sequence, indicating that it is not in fact simultaneous.

-Matt

Escadin wrote:
My point is the rule says

A + C = AC

B + C = BC

But it doesn't say A + B = AB or AC + BC = ABC or anything like that anywhere. So just don't fuse it and you end up with a unit of 2 (AC and BC), which can be treated the way I explained above.

There are no rules backing this up.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Escadin wrote:
My point is the rule says

A + C = AC

B + C = BC

But it doesn't say A + B = AB or AC + BC = ABC or anything like that anywhere. So just don't fuse it and you end up with a unit of 2 (AC and BC), which can be treated the way I explained above.

There are no rules backing this up.

The problem is that we only have 1 C (mount).
As written, the Choice of girls on eagle is unplayable.
We don't have permission to roll both characters and the mount into a single combined unit. (no rules for ABC, only AC or BC)
We don't have permission to combine the characters separately with the same mount (Can't have AC and BC when you only have a single C)
We clearly don't have permission to single out the mount, but are told what happens when he dies. (C must be combined with A rider).

The sisters are 2 models for all discribed purposes (or treated similiar in case of riding a monster). If we are not explicitly allowed to fuse them, nor to keep treating them as 2 models in an undiscribd case (MC) then what?

Are we going back to this combination is not allowed to be played? :(

Escadin wrote:
The sisters are 2 models for all discribed purposes (or treated similiar in case of riding a monster). If we are not explicitly allowed to fuse them, nor to keep treating them as 2 models in an undiscribd case (MC) then what?

Are we going back to this combination is not allowed to be played? :(

Aaaaaaaaaaaactually. Stop right there. The rules describe them as a special character. So, teeeechnically. Yeah.

I don't have the new book.

But once a character joins a cavalry, monstrous cavalry, monstrous beast, they become one model. You can't ever attack the horse of a character on a mounted cavalry, no matter how badass that horse is, like Acharon's horse--that is one mean mambajamba horse. And you don't get to add his wounds to Acharon's and made a superguy or randomize hits between them. You can't directly attack the mounted beast/cavalry, no matter how badass it is, like a Juggernaut or Pegasus. If Skulltaker sits on a Jugg or a Chaos Lord sits on a Jugg, you can't ever take them off, they are one model from the start of the game until the end. They are one unit and one model.

There is different from a mounted monster where you can attack either and they have separate profiles. They are one UNIT but two models--you can specifically shoot one or the other if you have Sniper. Further, they went out of their way to say stuff like a cannon affects BOTH targets if you're mounted on a monster. They didn't have to say that if you're mounted on a beast because there is only one target.

If you want to randomize hits, there has to be a rule stating why you do so. That section only belongs to ridden monsters, not cavalry.

We need to knock off this whole "but the BRB only talks about one model... we dont know what to do about two...".

This isn't about 2 models. It is about the type Monstrous Cavalry. It has very specific rules. If you put 23498 elves onto one beast, they become one MC and follow all the rules for MC. You need to knock off throwing the BRB out the window because we don't have anything to take its place. The BRB HAS rules. You have to fudge and make up rules to try and replace the MC sections. In the absence of specific rules or FAQs you have to go with with exists.

As always, you can make house rules.

There are two characters. The fact there is only one mount is totally irrelevant. Each character will become T4 w3 so you will need 6 wounds in a turn to kill both because of their special rule.

The thing that knocks the BRB out the window is the army book. In fact the BRB says that if there are discrepancies, the army book takes precedence. Now the problem here is the wording in the Wood Elf Army book is not incredibly descriptive. However, if the army book has a specific instance of two characters on top of a MC, then it would override whatever the BRB rules are for MC.

Trystis wrote:
There are two characters. The fact there is only one mount is totally irrelevant. Each character will become T4 w3 so you will need 6 wounds in a turn to kill both because of their special rule.

Witness the magic eagle capable of cloning itself in mid-air!

Not taking your post seriously

 Icculus wrote:
The thing that knocks the BRB out the window is the army book. In fact the BRB says that if there are discrepancies, the army book takes precedence. Now the problem here is the wording in the Wood Elf Army book is not incredibly descriptive. However, if the army book has a specific instance of two characters on top of a MC, then it would override whatever the BRB rules are for MC.

There are no conflicting rules, that's the problem.

Trystis wrote:
There are two characters. The fact there is only one mount is totally irrelevant. Each character will become T4 w3 so you will need 6 wounds in a turn to kill both because of their special rule.

They are MC. MC is one model. If they are 23894 characters they are now one model who has the highest T/W of the combined 23894. There has to be text that says otherwise or that is the rule that exists in the BRB.

In fact the BRB says that if there are discrepancies, the army book takes precedence.

No, it says if there is a RULE. If the BRB says something costs 10 and the army book says 15, it costs 15. If the BRB says you have to take a panic test in a situation and the army book doesn't, then you don't. If the Army book doesn't OVERWRITE a rule with a specific rule, then there is nothing.

However, if the army book has a specific instance of two characters on top of a MC, then it would override whatever the BRB rules are for MC.

Then the MC would lose fast cav, cav, highest T/W, Stomp and everything else the BRB provides. Because presumably this Army Book representation tells you exactly what to do. But I'm guessing it doesn't.

In fact, you're cherry picking rules and wholesale throwing out others based on no information. Why does sitting on an Eagle become MC since you're completely throwing out the MC rules? Why don't they become a Swarm?

Witness the magic eagle capable of cloning itself in mid-air!

Not taking your post seriously

The eagle doesn't need to clone it self, it can't be hit by attacks so it can't die. Only the riders can. Mounts are just a piece of war gear. Each rider is going to get the benefit of being on a mount. Besides it's silly to lower their total wounds to 3 when it would be 4 on foot.

Rules, quote them. It's YMDC. The mere fact that you state that the eagle cannot be hit by attacks shows a severe lack of rules knowledge.

Page 82 "We assume the enemy always strikes the rider, so his wound and toughness are used instead - if the rider is slain we treat the mount as having fled the battle or been slain along side it's master"

Page 83 "All Calvary rules apply to monstrous cavalry"

So yeah... The eagle can't be hit by attacks.

There are two riders each with their own set of wounds, profiles, and rules for when there on foot (admittedly this only applies when they use the dragon) . Each will benefit from the mount.

Except you're ignoring the rule for MC where you use the highest T/W. You don't add them up.

Are we getting anywhere or...?

The rule says that "Although a Cavalry model has two sets of characteristics, one for the rider and one for the mount, it's treated in all respects as a single model"

I think the key is "the rider" in this case there are two riders, whose characteristics you don't combine. The rider Neastra, and the rider Arahan. There isn't a rule combing them into one model. Which is really where the problem is at. They are each combined with the singular mount but not each other.

Is there a rule that says two models can't share a base, or are just no examples of it outside of cavalry? I have never thought about it before.

Trystis wrote:
The rule says that "Although a Cavalry model has two sets of characteristics, one for the rider and one for the mount, it's treated in all respects as a single model"

I think the key is "the rider" in this case there are two riders, whose characteristics you don't combine. The rider Neastra, and the rider Arahan. There isn't a rule combing them into one model. Which is really where the problem is at. They are each combined with the singular mount but not each other.

Is there a rule that says two models can't share a base, or are just no examples of it outside of cavalry? I have never thought about it before.

We've been there twice now... xD I guess this thing isn't going anywhere.

Mmmm ok. Till next FAQ, maybe edition...

Since this is going nowhere, I don't mind derailing with another sisters question.

What happens when one sisters fails the Strength test for Dwellers and is removed from play, while the 2nd sister passes?

I remember a slay, slain and RIP thread a long time ago, but don't remember the outcome.

-Matt

Well it does appear no matter how we field the twins we have to invent rules. On the Eagle we either invent a randomisation rule using the units with less than 5 RnF models rule. Or we invent a combined triple stat line rule using inference that they are each combined with the Eagle through Monstrous Cav rules which is not actually supported by RaW.

On the Dragon we also have to invent a randomisation rule as the one for ridden monsters simply states on a 5 or 6 you hit "the rider" so again we need to create a rule to work out which.

Therefore for consistency it makes most sense to use a randomisation rule in both cases as it solves the issue with the same process and means all the rules do something. It also means the Sisters are playable in either format. But strict RaW we have no way to resolve the Sisters on either mount and the game breaks.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
Since this is going nowhere, I don't mind derailing with another sisters question.

What happens when one sisters fails the Strength test for Dwellers and is removed from play, while the 2nd sister passes?

I remember a slay, slain and RIP thread a long time ago, but don't remember the outcome.

-Matt

Since you have to kill both sisters in the same phase of the game in order to actually kill them, if no one wizards off the other sister with magic the first sister comes back with full wounds at the end of the magic phase. Same goes for movement (one somehow bites it to dangerous terrain), shooting, close combat, or whatever.

The MC vs. M riders thing is quite silly, and will have to be faq'd to be answered.

 FlingitNow wrote:

On the Dragon we also have to invent a randomisation rule as the one for ridden monsters simply states on a 5 or 6 you hit "the rider" so again we need to create a rule to work out which.

(In case of riding a Monster)
Well the rulebook says something along the lines of 'In the rare case of 2 riders, you will have to randomise the hits between them on a 5 or 6 as well.'. It just doesn't say how and allows us to create a randomisation rule at least.

overtninja wrote:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
Since this is going nowhere, I don't mind derailing with another sisters question.

What happens when one sisters fails the Strength test for Dwellers and is removed from play, while the 2nd sister passes?

I remember a slay, slain and RIP thread a long time ago, but don't remember the outcome.

-Matt

Since you have to kill both sisters in the same phase of the game in order to actually kill them, if no one wizards off the other sister with magic the first sister comes back with full wounds at the end of the magic phase. Same goes for movement (one somehow bites it to dangerous terrain), shooting, close combat, or whatever.

That's not quite what it says. If one sister is slain (which is described in the rule book as having it's last wound removed) then the other comes back. If one sister is removed from play, she isn't slain so the rest of the conjoined rules is moot.
I don't think people would play it this way, but that does look RAW.

Anyhow, the sisters are the last entry in the wood elf rules, and it's pretty clear they were thrown in at the last minute with pretty much 0 playtesting.


-Matt

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

Anyhow, the sisters are the last entry in the wood elf rules, and it's pretty clear they were thrown in at the last minute with pretty much 0 playtesting.


-Matt

I guess they assumed these things have worked as intended before so why test it?

Anyway, why did it work before? What changed?

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

overtninja wrote:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
Since this is going nowhere, I don't mind derailing with another sisters question.

What happens when one sisters fails the Strength test for Dwellers and is removed from play, while the 2nd sister passes?

I remember a slay, slain and RIP thread a long time ago, but don't remember the outcome.

-Matt

Since you have to kill both sisters in the same phase of the game in order to actually kill them, if no one wizards off the other sister with magic the first sister comes back with full wounds at the end of the magic phase. Same goes for movement (one somehow bites it to dangerous terrain), shooting, close combat, or whatever.

That's not quite what it says. If one sister is slain (which is described in the rule book as having it's last wound removed) then the other comes back. If one sister is removed from play, she isn't slain so the rest of the conjoined rules is moot.
I don't think people would play it this way, but that does look RAW.

Anyhow, the sisters are the last entry in the wood elf rules, and it's pretty clear they were thrown in at the last minute with pretty much 0 playtesting.


-Matt

Dwellers does say that models who fail the strength test are 'slain', so that at least matches up with Conjoined Destiny As to the original question of the mount, I've been re-reading the rules for about ten minutes now and haven't got anywhere. Will have to keep scrutinizing them!

Ben

In regards to the original question / mount issue:

RAW: Fielding the twins on an eagle is illegal.

Advice / HYWPI: House-rule it to be allowed and add #2:

RAW: Killing the eagle kills both characters as well.

Advice / HYWPI House-rule it to work like Ridden Monsters.

RaW it certainly is not illegal. RaW is that the model doesn't work and the game breaks.

Thus we have HYWPI or why not just try to nail down what the actual rules are? So we know conjoined destiny is probably meant to do something and we know that Montrous Cav use highest T & W. So we have 2 possible likely RaIs.

First and for me most likely is it is a unit of 2 MC on 1 base. This seems to break no real rules and works fine. There is a justification for this being RaW as nothing joins the twins to 1 stat line.

Second for me less likely is to treat as a Ridden Monster. This makes all parts of conjoined destiny do something for both options but there is no indication that this is the intention beyond it working and being the only situation where we actually have rules for multiple models on a mount (thank you Sigvatr).

 FlingitNow wrote:
RaW it certainly is not illegal. RaW is that the model doesn't work and the game breaks.

Thus we have HYWPI or why not just try to nail down what the actual rules are? So we know conjoined destiny is probably meant to do something and we know that Montrous Cav use highest T & W. So we have 2 possible likely RaIs.

First and for me most likely is it is a unit of 2 MC on 1 base. This seems to break no real rules and works fine. There is a justification for this being RaW as nothing joins the twins to 1 stat line.

Second for me less likely is to treat as a Ridden Monster. This makes all parts of conjoined destiny do something for both options but there is no indication that this is the intention beyond it working and being the only situation where we actually have rules for multiple models on a mount (thank you Sigvatr).

I think until we get an FAQ, HIWPI is basically what we are left with since we're dealing with a truly grey area in the rules, unless anyone else can offer anything more definitive in terms of rules.

If someone wanted to run them vs me, I'd say they'd have three wounds apiece.

Vortaine wrote:

I think until we get an FAQ, HIWPI is basically what we are left with since we're dealing with a truly grey area in the rules, unless anyone else can offer anything more definitive in terms of rules.
If someone wanted to run them vs me, I'd say they'd have three wounds apiece.

I'd do the same, only because they really aren't that good.
On the dragon, it's a different story.

-Matt

HIWPI is to treat it as needing a degree of allocation.

The way I interpret it is that it is, in terms of defending against attacks, two monstrous cavalry models that occupy the same base. Shooting would be randomized 1-3 onto one sister 4-6 on the other, and melee would be chosen between the two. Each one would have the T4/W3 of the eagle, being MC.

It feels as if I re-read the same post multiple times throughout this thread.

I agree that the rules are indeed set in stone that MC and Riders are one, but it does not "seem" like it should be that way for the sisters.

So I will play the sisters on a dragon and only on a dragon until this is solved. I am really disappointed with my new WE book and the amount of arguing taking place especially with the Enchanted arrow debacle :(

The rules for the twins should have been written with a combined profile as they have the exact same stat line and just give them 4 wounds for the single profile instead of two each. This way there would be less confusion about who would get hit as the twins would be one profile and conjoined destiny would still work! (If you dont get them down 4 wounds they just get them back) As for the mounts split profile you could just use the twins combined wounds 4 and eagles Toughness 4 no? Reading their rules i can understand why there is so much confusion as they are in no way 100% clear, but for the sake of simplifying the rules i would just combine the twins into one profile (with 4 wounds).

With the combined profile I'm guessing you're also ruling they can't fire both weapons if they are indeed 1 4W model? Do they get all 6 attacks even if the enemy does 2 wounds to them before they strike?

Sorry but that is an entirely nonsensical HYWPI that fundamentally changes how the Sisters play.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Quote the rules or leave the discussion. YMDC is used for RAW, not HYWPI

That's blatantly false; in the tenents of YMDC one of the rules is;

 Lorek wrote:

4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).

Rules As Written - This refers to playing by the strict letter of the rules, which can lead to odd or counterintuitive situations.

How You Would Play It - This refers to taking small liberties with the rules to smooth out the odd or counterintuitive situations listed above.

so clearly you can argue HYWPI

The point of YMDC is to find the RAW reasoning. If that fails, HYWPI is given instead of help people out.

Here we need to discuss RaI or HYMPI because the RaW doesn't exist to cover the situation.

Personally, I'd go for the quick and easy solution and treat the eagle just as a Ridden Monster.

 Sigvatr wrote:
The point of YMDC is to find the RAW reasoning. If that fails, HYWPI is given instead of help people out.

The only place where it tells us explicitly what the purpose of YMDC is this;

WHFB You Make Da Call
Want to discuss Fantasy rules interpretations? This is the place. Caution: Can get heated, but also can be informative

So again; you can't tell someone not to use HYWPI because no official source (tenets/description) says that one is trumped by another . At best that's HYWPI of the rules of YMDC

HYWPI is pointless in a rules discussion as it has zero actual value and can greatly vary among players. As HYWPI is fully subjective, there is no point in discussing it and therefore, it's an emergency solution for cases where RAW isn't clear.

RAW only has one possible solution and can be discussed by properly providing rule quotations and logical argumentations.

Therefore, coming from a HYWPI perspective is a waste of time for all participants.

 Sigvatr wrote:
HYWPI is pointless in a rules discussion as it has zero actual value and can greatly vary among players. As HYWPI is fully subjective, there is no point in discussing it and therefore, it's an emergency solution for cases where RAW isn't clear.

RAW only has one possible solution and can be discussed by properly providing rule quotations and logical argumentations.

Therefore, coming from a HYWPI perspective is a waste of time for all participants.

well that's just HYWPI

in all seriousness when talking about interpretations of unclear rules its more useful than straight up RAW, specifically when special rules are made obsolete by options due to vagueness

As logn as you actually mark your post "HYWPI", there is no issue discussing it here - it just cant really be argued with, same as any opinion it always has the fallback of "but thats how I would do it", as opposed to any written answer.

The main issue comes when a HYWPI argument is presented as RAW.