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.

I was told when my Seer died that my Bell would be forcably ejected from the unit. The rules quoted were from page 79 where, in my mini-rulebook, it says under Unbreakabe that both the character and the unit have to have it. Right under that it says what to do with mounts. For unbreakable it says if either the rider or mount have it both do. Now nowhere in there do I see that my Bell would be auto-ejected when my Seer died, as the ejecting rule only mentions characters. I heard adepticon ruled in favor of the auto-eject, but I don't see a definitive yes or no here. Is this just me being a biased Skaven player, or is this something not covered?

Without an FAQ, most are basing the answer to that question based on how it's been played at the UKGT or other big tournaments. Like many, many things in the Skaven book, we won't really know till an FAQ drops.

RZ

By the main rules though, that doesn't make sense. It says only the character is kicked out, but while he is alive the Grey Seer is unbreakable and the Bell isn't a character. So where is the basis for the Bell getting kicked out? Is it just a ruling that people are doing?

I think it might relate to the fact that ridden monsters, once you kill the character on top, can no longer join units and are ejected. While the bell isn't a monster per se, I don't think there's ANY other multi-wound mount that isn't* - essentially if the mount can be wounded, then it needs the character to stay in the unit.

- Salvage

*Chariots maybe, but those can't join units in the first place.

I think it would stay in the unit as it isn't a monstrous mount and there really doesn't seem to be any reason/rule that it should be ejected....also doesn't it say in the bell's rules that once the bell is in a unit it can never leave?

Bat Manuel wrote:I think it would stay in the unit as it isn't a monstrous mount and there really doesn't seem to be any reason/rule that it should be ejected....also doesn't it say in the bell's rules that once the bell is in a unit it can never leave?

Except that is an *opinion* that has no basis in the rules. Unles syou take the word "special" to mean "I ignore all rules that I dont like"

There are a limited number of categories for a mount to be in the rulebook, and the ONLY one the Bell satisfies is the Monstrous Mount category. Once the seer dies the bell is now a Monster, and as such must be ejected from the unit (BRB FAQ part 2 if memory serves, cant look it up at work)

The bell rules say that it cannot "voluntarily" leave - well, this isnt voluntary movement!

The chances are a FAQ will state it does not leave, however that is a change to the rules and so currently it should be plyed that the bell is left behind.

Under Alter of the horned rat rule the units cannot volentarily leave the bell, yes this means that you cant leavethe bell if you want to, and it says nothing about leavin the bell if you dont want to so this is a grey area for later..



So moving along: the Bell is a SPECIAL mount, what that means is its not a monsterous mount though it might satisfy requirements for such is a moot point. (or mount if you look in the army list witch again does not make it monsterous), . it doesnt say that if the seer is destroyed that the bell is ejected, and no where does it say that the bell is monsterous. so why would it be ejected if its not a monsterous mount? Claerly there is a good arguement for each side. but in the final it comes down to this. does a bell without a grey seer get ejected? is there a rule that states this? no.

Id say slap your opponent in the teeth. 'A' for effort, but the Bell stays in the unit.


Oh look we need another FAQ clarification...... Stupid. stupid GW.

Hawkins - sorry, all that is pure supposition on your part: it has no basis in the rules.

The word "special" does precisely *nothing* to alter the classification the SB falls under, as it does not qualify how it is special.

As such: the bell IS a monstrous mount, by the rules as written (RAW) - whether this is RAI can be determined at a later date through a FAQ, hopefully.

Additionally a prohibition on *voluntary* movement does *nothing* to restrict involuntary (forced) movement - meaning the bell IS ejected from the unit if the Grey Seer dies.

Yes, this will likely be changed in a FAQ, however for now in *rules* the SB is a monstrous mount, and follows all restrictions etc that a monstrous mount does.

So nosferatu, the argument for is that the bell falls under a monsterous mount and thus by the BRB FAQ, page 5, when the character dies the bell would auto-eject.

While the argument against is that the bell is a special mount and thus doesn't follow those rules for monsterous mounts and follows the rules written in the skaven book.

Am I correct in this? I want to present both sides to my game group so we can decided on a house rule till an FAQ comes out.

The problem is that the Skaven book does say that the Bell is a special mount but it does not go on to say how it is special in regards to this situation. Because the Skaven book does not give rules for this situation, but it does meet the definition of a monstrous mount in the BRB which has rules for this instance, the only written rule is that it is involuntarily ejected from the unit it is with.

Know what? Im going to sit this one out and eat popcorn.
Nos i yeild the floor to you.

Until that freak show named GW gets off its lazy arse and releases a FAQ. on skaven.

I don't have my books with me so I can't really argue with those that do but what in the book qualifies something as a monstrous mount? Is it wounds?


<From a *fluff* standpoint the reason monsters get ejected is because they have no handlers and the unit doesn't want that in their midst. The bell's handlers are the unit so by GW's logic the bell will probably not be ejected when the FAQ comes out because it will be so obvious to them that they will not put it in the FAQ. >

My, mini-rulebook defines a monstrous mount on page 59, right side, second paragraph, first sentence. It says if a mount has 2 wounds or more, it is monstrous mount. So yeah the bell would fit under that technicly.

Remember the bell ALSO has a rat ogre, I wouldnt want that one in my midst without a grey seer commanding respect....

I'm with Nos on this one. It's a reasonable question to ask, but based on the rules available, this is the only logical conclusion.

RZ

By RAW I believe you all correct 100% But i think the arguement could be made since it is a special mount that might mean it is refering to it being a special form of mount, not described by the main rulebook.

That IS an argument, just one that is entirely incomplete in terms of what rules it is suppsoed to follow.

The only rules you have for the model are the monstrous mount rules, and until / unless these are changed by an Errata then those are the ones you must follow by default.

Bat Manuel wrote:I think it would stay in the unit as it isn't a monstrous mount and there really doesn't seem to be any reason/rule that it should be ejected....also doesn't it say in the bell's rules that once the bell is in a unit it can never leave?

Yes it does.

And the Bell rules say that the Bell makes the unit unbreakable, not that the bell itself is unbreakable.

On the other hand, the bell is listed as an upgrade to the Seer, not as a unit unto itself. So if the seer dies does the bell die with him?

Gripping hand is it has a separate statline like a chariot, and chariots bearing characters are not automatically destroyed if the character is killed.


The new Skaven rules are a confused mess. I really wish GW would just put out 'beta' rules for us to test for them. That way we could find these gaps in the rules and tell them about it BEFORE they publish the books.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Bat Manuel wrote:I think it would stay in the unit as it isn't a monstrous mount and there really doesn't seem to be any reason/rule that it should be ejected....also doesn't it say in the bell's rules that once the bell is in a unit it can never leave?

Except that is an *opinion* that has no basis in the rules. Unles syou take the word "special" to mean "I ignore all rules that I dont like"

There are a limited number of categories for a mount to be in the rulebook, and the ONLY one the Bell satisfies is the Monstrous Mount category. Once the seer dies the bell is now a Monster, and as such must be ejected from the unit (BRB FAQ part 2 if memory serves, cant look it up at work)

The bell rules say that it cannot "voluntarily" leave - well, this isnt voluntary movement!

The chances are a FAQ will state it does not leave, however that is a change to the rules and so currently it should be plyed that the bell is left behind.

I'm curious as to how a large platform with wheels and a bell qualifies as a monster.

Hey! If it's a monsterous mount, then it gets a roll on the monster reaction chart and can go off charging on it's own! That's not voluntary movement either, if we are going to go by that logic! (And yes, I realize exactly how stupid that sounds.)

Because the rules say it is? If you have a rules argument then please, proffer one...

Oh, yes it does roll on the table (everyone always forgets the rat ogre - maybe he's a bit annoyed?) however, with a move of 0, good luck ever moving it anywhere. I assume the "how stupid that sounds" was your suggesting it could run off somewhere? Cos that was fairly ignorant of the rules, if not exactly stupid....

arinnoor wrote:By RAW I believe you all correct 100% But i think the arguement could be made since it is a special mount that might mean it is refering to it being a special form of mount, not described by the main rulebook.

Right, but let's say we take that argument. What's the next step? If it *is* a special mount that isn't described in the rulebook, then what it does from there is anybody's guess, right? You could say it becomes a purple teleporting vortex of doom. I could say it stays in the unit. Neither are options listed for a special "not-in-the-rulebook" mount. Which is why the best solution is to go with monstrous mount, IMO...

RZ

Nos is 100% correct. The Bell is a monstrous mount as per the rules on page 5 of the main rule book.

Hmm? Wouldn't it's a special mount that follows the rules written out in the Skaven book be a perfectly reasonable asumption? Doesn't assuming it works like a monstrous mount, disregard the specail mount in the Skaven book? Either way, I talked it over with my group, showing them the argument in this thread, and they said we're gonna house rule it that it simply is a mount, that follows the rules in the Skaven book, aka it isn't a monster.

There are 2 types of Mounts "Cavalry" which is a 1 wound mount and "Monstrous" which is a multi-wound mount. In this case it is a Multi-wound mount that has special rules that extend beyond what the monstrous mount rules cove. None of the Special rules give it permission to stay in a unit after its rider dies.

I know what your saying, and can agree that is RAW. However, my group and I see that as extremly silly and choose to house rule otherwise.

arinnoor wrote:I know what your saying, and can agree that is RAW. However, my group and I see that as extremly silly and choose to house rule otherwise.

Which is fine - as long as you are *aware* it is a houserule, and explain that clearly in any tournaments with outsiders, then this is a perfectly fine thing to do.

Half the battle is knowing what the rules are, so if you dont agree with them you can change them. Unknowingly making houserules just causes arguments...

Quite thankfully the FAQ has dropped, and the issue of how the bell/furnace is to be treated has been clearly answered.

Interesting ruling that you can put a character in the unit then join the bell....never saw it working that way!

Sorry, where is the FAQ?

FAQ section on the GW website, same as every other FAQ - I highly suggest you read both BRB FAQs if you havent already.