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.

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.