Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Do VC Black Knights ignore the barding penalty? Seems to me like they do, but I am new to fantasy so perhaps I am missing something.

From rulebook p12: "Troops riding mounts with barding more more slowly because the weight of the armor impedes movement. A cavalry mount with barding suffers a -1" move penalty."

From VC book p48 discussing ethereal movement: "They are also never affected by any special rule, spell or item that would otherwise reduce their movement or stop them moving completely."

Seems like ghost horses aren't encumbered by ghost armor plates. Am I way off base here?

That's the argument, yes.

There is a counter-argument that runs something like this:

From VC book p48 discussing ethereal movement: "They are also never affected by any special rule, spell or item that would otherwise reduce their movement or stop them moving completely."

Therefore, barding confers no advantage at all, as the model cannot be affected by barding (an item that would otherwise reduce their movement).

I have no opinion one way or t'other, as I don't play VCs. As usual, GW runs into trouble by setting up a global rule, and then breaking it.

I guess ... I'd have to weigh in on the side that says if you want the barding save benefit you take the barding movement negative. Barding is extra points, right? And I'm guessing cheap enough to infer the movement negative isn't ignored?

- Salvage

There's also an intent argument some people use, that the word "item" is referring to magic items.

Yet another reason GW needs to put out a FAQ in the near future.

A reasoned argument can clearly be made either way thanks to an apparent lack in any sort of proofreading.

My personal thoughts are that they should be affected, as the rule in the description of black knights seems to be geared towards the 'ignoring terrain' aspect mostly, because remember, the steeds AREN'T ethereal, they just move like they are.

It's a simple mistake that can be very easily rectified.

I think I'd go with insufficientnoj here. And really, why would they say they're barded if it didn't matter?

no they are not slowed down and yes they get the +1 save.

i think we are really splitting hairs on this.the use of a comma does not mean that you can end the sentence. the whole sentence needs to be taken as a whole reference to the rule.

i cant just select all 3 things and take each as a whole. for example...

"They are also never affected by any special rule that would otherwise reduce their movement or stop them moving completely"

"They are also never affected by any spell that would otherwise reduce their movement or stop them moving completely "

"They are also never affected by any item that would otherwise reduce their movement or stop them moving completely"

this would make no sense.

It makes perfect sense to me. "Dirty Bob never bathes, cuts his hair or changes his clothes" implies "Dirty Bob never bathes", "Dirty Bob never cuts his hair" as well as "Dirty Bob never changes his clothes." What's the problem?

Im gonna go with they move as if they were ethereal (ignore movement penalty) but are not actually ethereal so gain the +1.

they are at -1 move for the barding.
the rule is for game effects such as spells and terrain.

Yup, poor rule writing meets power gaming. Welcome to Hell.

I intend to run my barded BKs at M7. I also Invoke into combat.

If a VC player insists on M8 in an unpleasant manner, I would point out that that ignore means ignore- so no +1 AS either ;-) If they persist, bring up the no casting Invocation into combat, or Miasma, and watch their head explode.

For me, I prefer friendlier, less ridiculous games where I can be reasonable and expect reasonableness from my opponent. The absurdist arguments really exhaust me. Do some of these people forget these are toy soldiers that we spend outrageous amounts of time and money on to have fun?

Maybe it's just because I am a lawyer and so get my fill of ridiculous nitpicking and word parsing at work, where they have to pay me to do it.

So you would be paying an extra point for a piece of gear that does absolutely nothing? Even GW isn't that intellectually impared.

It's wieghtless armor, no penalty to movement.
It's magical, it adds the +1 to protection.

See, that argument makes sense.

Arguing a RAW interpretation that makes an item you pay for intentionaly useless, is absurd

Is it regular barding ? No
Is it better than regualr barding that way ? Yes

So you would be paying an extra point for a piece of gear that does absolutely nothing? Even GW isn't that intellectually impared.

This isn't much of an argument. An Ork warboss in 40k can buy 'eavy armour even though he's on a bike, and an Inquisitor can buy carapace armour even though he is already wearing it by default. And any number of characters have the option to buy a CCW even though they have no single-handed weapon to combine it with.

I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, but it will need something stronger than "GW wouldn't let you pay points for something useless" to back it up.

(Wow, I am debating the rules of a game I don't even play. Go me.)

Slyde wrote:Do VC Black Knights ignore the barding penalty? Seems to me like they do, but I am new to fantasy so perhaps I am missing something.

From rulebook p12: "Troops riding mounts with barding more more slowly because the weight of the armor impedes movement. A cavalry mount with barding suffers a -1" move penalty."

From VC book p48 discussing ethereal movement: "They are also never affected by any special rule, spell or item that would otherwise reduce their movement or stop them moving completely."

Seems like ghost horses aren't encumbered by ghost armor plates. Am I way off base here?

I agree that Barding does not slow the Black Knights.

P1. Barding has 2 Special rules, one of which reduces the movement of a barded model by 1 P12.
P2. Black Knights are never affected by any special rule, spell or item that would otherwise reduce their movement or stop them moving completely.

C. Black Knights are not affected by the special rule for barding that reduces their movement by 1.

I think the question is, are the mounts etherial, or is it the riders. if it's the riders, then there movment is hampered because it is the mounts doing the moving.

The Skeletal Steeds have the rule not the riders.

Negativemonkey: The problem is that it sort of cherry picks. Not affected means not affected. Barding is an item with 2 effects. One effect is the -1 movement. This triggers the steed rule so they are not effected by the barding.

I see your interpretation, but I feel both are equally unreasonable. Again, if a player insists on ignoring the penalty, they should be well prepared to not cast Invocation or Miasma into combat. Discuss with your opponents or TO in advance.

I think this is just greed. If BK barding ignored the -1, I am fairly certain the rule would specifically state that and not leave it to such tortured deduction. So far, GW seems content to simplify and have barding reduce across the board (notice even the ithilmar barding rule is gone this time around).

jmurph, Barding has 2 separate special rules one that gives a bonus and the other gives a penalty. Each of these are mutually exclusive and one can be pacified while the other can still have effect.

As far as invocation is concerned there is more than enough evidence within the rules to imply that it can be cast in combat. The Rules for casting into combat do not require explicit permission but rather any indication that it can.

actually the rule states that a spell cannot be cast into combat unless it is specifically stated that it can in the spells description. the problem most people are commenting on is that thetre is a specific example in the army book that describes the spell being cast into close combat, or so I hear. I do not have the book because I do not play VC, and never will. I hate Vampires, and always have.

jmurph, Barding has 2 separate special rules one that gives a bonus and the other gives a penalty. Each of these are mutually exclusive and one can be pacified while the other can still have effect.

Alternative perspective:

Barding is an item, which has two rules. One of the rules reduces movement. Therefore, barding is an item which would reduce movement.

Ethereal creatures are not affected by items which would reduce movement. Ergo, Black Knights are not affected by barding. If they're not affected by barding, they don't suffer the movement penalty AND they don't get the armor bonus.

(Again, I don't really care. But the argument is valid - if you decide that Barding is an item, you're stuck with all the consequences thereof.)

Easy answer, in the case of a rules ambiguity, go with the interpretation that is gives the lesser benefit. Therefore, Barding on Black Knights gives +1 Save and reduces movement by one until GW tells me otherwise.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I agree with ozymandias.
In my opinion, one thing is clear: they wouldn't state that the mounts are barded, if you wouldn't get the advantage of barding. Ergo, you get the advantage, it's clear that's what the design team wanted. So the question isn't: do they ignore the barding completely or do they only get the advantages?
It will definitly keep the advantages, and till GW makes it clear, you should take the penalty with it to avoid arguements, unless ofcourse your opponent agrees to let you keep the unhampered movement.

Yup, that' my point Janthkin. It can be dangerous to get to carried away with RAW twisting.

I agree with you Oz. But by that token would you also not Invoke into combat?

I really wish GW would update their FAQs....

There is nothing in the rules that supports the idea that Barding is an Item. Until you can show me a rule that states it is an item I will treat it as a unit upgrade that confers 2 special rules.

The only things that are classified as items in the rules are Magic items listed in each army list.

Really? Then lances, great weapons, armor, and other mundane equipment are not items? Only the magical equivalents?

By your argument it is an upgrade that confers the movement penalty then? Hrm.... I don't recall upgrades being covered by the steeds rule. And if you want to get really nitpicky barding rules aren't "special"- they are basic rules in the rule book.

Again, I would refer to Oz's response which shows great wisdom and sportsmanship.

I would argue that Weapons are Weapons Armor is Armor and Steeds are mounts. There is nothing to indicate that they fall into the item category. Enchanted Items and Arcane Items are the only 2 things in the game that fall into the Item category as they are listed as items.

As I have said by RAW the only thing that is ignored by the skeletal steed special rule is that barding will not reduce the movement of the unit by 1. There is nothing in RAW that will support it any other way.

Janthkin, what you're missing is that the black knights have a rule that says their ethereal for purposes of movment, not in general.

So when they move, they're ethereal, and suffer no -1".

When you shoot or magic or hit them, they aren't moving, and aren't ethereal, and get the +1 to their save.

Wait, doesn't the VC book list barding as armor?

ed, I think you are assuming facts not there. It does not say during the movement phase, it simply says they ignore. And you also fail to address a number of arguments that say they wouldn't ignore it anyway.

Barding is armor, barding is not a special rule, etc...

I think reasonable minds can disagree on the result, but saying there is no ambiguity when so many people familiar with the rules disagree is a bit strange.

Well, I don't have the book in front of me, but I know the words 'for the purposes of movment' are in there. I'm not going to bother quoting the book, because I don't care enough to follow up when i have the book, but it's there.

RE: Invoking in to combat. They have always been able to invoke into combat and there is an example of what happens if you invoke into combat so I don't think its a comparable issue.

Ozymandias, King of Kings