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 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.