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.

So upon wanting to make a character on palanquin for my WoC army I have hit a stump... What unit type is it? Considering the palanquin is infantry but only has 1 wound, wouldn't it default to cavalry?

This is posing some problems as A) I odviously don't know the unit type and B) I don't know what base size to put them on, which is my other question... What base size are they? Epidimus is 50mm if I'm not mistaken but once again Im not sure if this is correct due to the listed unit type. I wan't to put him on a 40mm but don't want to end up with an illigal character.

I tried doing so searching on google and couldn't find a clear answer, so I turn to you wonderful people for advice! Has anyone else come to a ruling on this? Or am I just being ignorant and skipping over some odvious rules?

So p. 54 of the WoC book tells us that even though the palanquin (like the other special mounts) isn't on a 25x50 (so check, not on a cav base), it's still a cavalry mount. And then the FAQ tells us to ignore that sentence and use the back of the BRB chart. In that case, the palanquin is apparently an Infantry model - I can only assume when an Infantry model (exalted/lord) stands on an Infantry model (palanquin), the result is an Infantry model. This is good in many ways (particularly in getting LOS!), but keep in mind that you likely shouldn't get the +1 armor save for being mounted. Since apparently the hero isn't?

As to base size, every palanquin I've seen has been 50x50, and the only palanquin in production (Epidemius) is on a 50x50, so I'd say 50x50 is the way to go. It is extremely unlikely that a chaos character on palanquin is on a 40x40, as the basic chaos base is 25x25 and all of the special mounts (barring steed of slaanesh) are on 50x50s as well. So if you're looking to put a palanquin dude with some trolls, he's riding the flank.

- Salvage

Hmmm sounds about right... though you see right through my plans. Of coarse its not going to be so much of a Palanquin Lord, but more or less a Palanquin Troll

I suppose with M4 I will want to keep him outside the unit anyways.

Thanks for the quick reply Salvage.

It is infantry (as per FAQ) and he should get the +1 armor save for being mounted (even though he's mounted on infantry).
Doesn't the warriors book say, that the characters may be "Mounted" on one of the following...

Anyhow, with how much nurgle has gotten the short end of the stick, give the guy a break for playing the under dogs of chaos.

-Matt

I'd say this palanquin would be simmilar to a slaan's planquin in that he is still infantry and gets no bonus save.

HoverBoy wrote:I'd say this palanquin would be simmilar to a slaan's planquin in that he is still infantry and gets no bonus save.

A grey seer mounted on a unique model gets a 6+ save.
I see no reason why a chaos hero mounted on an infantry model would not also get the 6+.
Unlike the slann, the palanquin has a stat-line.

-Matt

IIRC in the back of the BRB there is a chart which gives you a list of the armor bonuses you'd get for various types of armor. On the chart it shows +1 for being mounted. So regardless of what you are mounted on you would still get the +1 for being mounted.

HawaiiMatt wrote:A grey seer mounted on a unique model gets a 6+ save.

Really? Because I've never seen anybody claim that bell / furnace armor. Does that mean that, on the flip side, a cannonball does in fact tag both 'rider' and 'mount' of a bell / furnace? And that a plague furnace priest does in fact not get +1A for having an ahw? (I actually do need to know the answers to these questions, and have never been convinced on the cannon thing, but no need to derail this thread too much.)

Similar to the words "model" and "in base contact," I have some issues with how loose GeeDub has been with "mounted" (particularly in regards to the skaven book)

- Salvage

The Palanquin is a mount, and follows the rules as such, aka +1 to armor save, no AHW, etc (for Deamons/WoC).

The same applies to the Skaven riding a Bell/Furnace. It is a mount for those characters.

Yea, unless the Skaven book has something, I think Davall is right. I can't find anything in the BRB that would contradict that, or allow for a unique mount (or infantry mount) to change the nature of the mount/rider relationship.

And yea, I think the Lord on Palanquin is a cavalry model (not infantry). Pg 104 says that the

"key definition lies in the fact that it has only a single Wound. Therefore, if a character is riding a mount with a single Wound, he is riding a cavalry mount.
If a character has a cavalry mount, the whole model is treated as having the troop type 'cavalry and follows all the rules for both characters and cavalry models."

So yea, giving your girlfriend a piggy back ride makes you cavalry, just like she was riding a horse. Insert your own joke here _______________

Wehrkind wrote:
And yea, I think the Lord on Palanquin is a cavalry model (not infantry). Pg 104 says that the

"key definition lies in the fact that it has only a single Wound. Therefore, if a character is riding a mount with a single Wound, he is riding a cavalry mount.
If a character has a cavalry mount, the whole model is treated as having the troop type 'cavalry and follows all the rules for both characters and cavalry models."

Page 104 also states that:
As a general rule, character mounts are broken down into four groups:
*Cavalry
*Monstrous Cavalry
*Chariot
*Monster

So the general rule is, those are usally the mount types; though the rule leaves openness for exceptions; such as the Screaming Bell, Plague Furnace and Palanquin, which all specify another unit type.


-Matt

Not really. Monstrous cav only comes from being on a Monstrous Beast, as stated under monstrous cavalry on page 105. Chariots only come from chariots, and Monsters make monsters.

You are still stuck with the fact that the palanquin is not a monstrous beast, and doesn't have more than one wound (so it isn't a monster) and isn't a chariot. So really all you have to go on is what I quoted previously that the key defining characteristic is whether it has a single wound, which the palanquin does. So it is cavalry type.

You have an argument that the Skaven unique units can do something else, but the Palanquin is perfectly covered by the cavalry mount section.

Wehrkind wrote:... the Palanquin is perfectly covered by the cavalry mount section.

I don't think that's quite true Wehr, at least not the 'perfectly' bit. Though I see what you're saying with your reading of the sentence that defaults 1 wound mounts to cavalry. How are you accounting for the unwritten caveat to that auto-cav default, which suggests that, judging by the Monstrous Cav section on 105, unit type does take some kind of precedence? I again point to the WoC FAQ for p. 54 -

Page 54 – Chaos Mounts
Ignore the last sentence of the first paragraph. The troop types
listed in the Warhammer Rulebook should be used instead.

- which deletes the line that says that juggers, demo-ponies, palanquins and discs are cavalry mounts, despite being on non-cavalry bases. We are being told to use the types from the BRB, and the BRB appears to suggest on 104-5 that we should, in fact, use the types from the BRB, including any re-categorization that may occur (exalted + disc = cav, for example). And here's another little nugget you aren't going to be convinced by: check out the unit type for Epidemius, the one instance of a palanquin rider that appears in the BRB stats. His type is In, while his palanquin is -, suggesting that post-combination, the rider-on-palanquin troop type is indeed Infantry.

Simply from a functionality stand point, Infantry makes a bit more sense than Cavalry - i.e. that thing ain't swiftstriding anywhere! - and also makes them a touch more usable, with the ability to gain LOS! rolls. Considering neither demon or warrior palanquin is the most WAAC option in their books, I myself would be happy to see an Infantry one across the table from me.

- Salvage

Boss_Salvage wrote:check out the unit type for Epidemius, the one instance of a palanquin rider that appears in the BRB stats. His type is In, while his palanquin is -, suggesting that post-combination, the rider-on-palanquin troop type is indeed Infantry.

I think this makes sense, and since the FAQ points us to the back of the BRB for unit types and deletes the line in the WoC book, there's really nowhere else to go for it!

Also, being so slow, it would be even worse than it already is if it was designated as cavalry! Who's going to put that M4 slugger with some chaos knights

I see your point Salvage, however, I see it as a question of certain types being called out (Monstrous Beasts, Monsters, Chariots) and everything else being cavalry based on the one wound default. Again, page 104: "Therefore, if a character is riding a mount with a single Wound, he is riding a cavalry mount." As more specific rules follow with application towards the types called out above, we go with those, but where no rules specifically exist (war beasts, infantry) we are told to default to cavalry.
This doesn't contradict the FAQ, as it just says to refer to the rule book for types, which puts us back at the "Is it one of the three special types? If not, cav."

Now, that said, I think the rules SHOULD say the palanquin is infantry. They don't though RAW. However, I would play it that way if my opponent was cool with it, because the rules are slowed.

It's infantry, and i guess il evn concede on the bonus armor point since this planquin ain't free like the slaan's.

Isn't there a dwarf lord who rides on a shield carried by guys or something? Might make for a good 3rd data point.

Yea the dwarven shieldbearers, and the skaven war litter are the same.

Wow. This makes me like my Palanquin Lord even more.

Since he probably wont lose his LoS rolls, wont die in the woods, and keeps his save bonus.

I never saw the unit type was infantry for a palanquin. I tend to follow the Faq ruling on this one.

Yea, it looks like that is at least what they had in mind, whether or not the rules say so. I will still check with a TO to avoid surprises. I am personally glad that most people would take the interpretation more favorable to lads with Mark of Big Papa, since the other reasons to take a MoN on something are pretty fleeting at best :( (outside of a cool lore)

Come to think of it, if we do treat the palanquin as infantry, it makes the Sorc on Palanquin a really nice unit booster. A couple of higher initiative attacks and 6 I3 ones add nicely to a marauder block vs just about anything marauders would expect to beat anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As a side note, I don't think the FAQ disagrees with my reading of the RAW. It just says "Ok, they are not all just cav now, but can be something else." After all, Monstrous Beasts when ridden turn the model into Monstrous Cavalry, not Monstrous Beasts, so the the base type of the mount only matters when figuring out what it turns into based on the rules on 104 and 105.

I also want to throw in a face palm at GW for writing rules on mounts that not only are incomplete based on the array of mounts available at the time of writing, but also for creating a process that reads like subset instructions for SAP MRP processes.