Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The Chamber of the Everchosen. We hope you enjoy your visit!


Here at COTEC we are all about the Warriors of Chaos in Warhammer Fantasy Battle.

Tactics to help you slaughter your opponent on the tabletop, through to galleries on how to build your next Warshrine. Its all covered... and growing!

We are a forum for gamers and hobbyist alike and again would like to welcome you to a fun, friendly, warm place and hope to see you again!


Join our legion! Takes less than a minute and gives you access to everything!


If you're already a member please log in to your account by entering the correct runes and words of power:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
frenzy; mounts?
Topic Started: Dec 27 2012, 10:12 AM (654 Views)
khorndog
The Chosen
Banner of rage is the only way to give mounts +1 attack, plain and simple. This is one of those rules that certain people constantly bring up hoping to find cheese where there is none. To give mounts frenzy would be game breaking, and with the BRB stating that only the portion of the model in control gets the additional attack, while both the mount and controlling portion of the model (ie the rider) have to test to charge, its very clear the intention to limit cavalry and monstrous cavalry models with frenzy.

Similarly, the entire model for Hellstriders has ItP, yet there is no rulr that prevents mounts from benefitting from the ItP rules when a cavalry or monstrous cavalry model has that rule. To continue claiming the rule is vague is grasping at straws IMO, and if you tried pulling that at a tournament you'd get major wierd looks from opponents.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rothgar13
Member Avatar
Clanlord
It seems that my support finally arrived. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mungojerrie
The Chosen
Ok. I am going to try to explain my point of view in this issue one final time.

This is what the rule book has to say about it

Page 70
Quote:
 
FRENZY
Certain warriors can work themselves up into a fighting frenzy, a whirlwind of destruction in which all concern for personal safety is overridden in favour of mindless violence.
To represent their fighting fury and lack of self-preservation instincts, Frenzied troops have the Extra Attack and Immune to Psychology special rules (see opposite and page 69).
BERSERK RAGE
If, during the Charge sub-phase, a unit that includes one or more Frenzied models could declare a charge, then it must do so unless a Leadership test is passed. If the Leadership test is foiled, the Frenzied unit must declare a charge against the nearest viable enemy.
A unit that includes one or more Frenzied models cannot choose to restrain pursuit if it beats a foe in close combat. It will either pursue (if the enemy has fled) or overrun (if the enemy was wiped out in combat).
Note that if the enemy is wiped out in combat but the Frenzied unit did not charge that turn (or if the combat was the result of a pursuit or
overrun charge in the same turn), then the Frenzied unit will reform as normal as it has no other choice of action.
In addition, Frenzied models cannot parry


This is pretty straight forward. A model with frenzy has the extra attack rule and ITP. Also berserk rage.
On page 82 the rulebook states:
Quote:
 
CAVALRY AND SPECIAL RULES
• If either the rider or the mount have Frenzy, then the whole model is subject to the Berserk Rage, but only the element with the Frenzy rule gains an Extra Attack.


The validity of this is the fact that part of a model could be subject to frenzy and this would still affect the whole model with its berserk rage. It does NOT state that the mount cannot be frenzied. It states that IF EITHER THE RIDER OR THE MOUNT has frenzy then the whole model is affected by berserk rage, but only the affected element has the extra attack.

This phrase do not state anything about mounts not being able to have frenzy.

The skullcrushers as a unit has mark of khorne. This affects the whole model and thus both juggernaught and knight has frenzy.

The argument I have seen debunking this sort of reasoning is mainly saying that the extra attack special rule says you gain 1 extra attack. I however feel that the argument with the chariot overrides this, as a khorne-marked chariot, which is also a single model would get at least 2 extra attacks. Do you agree?
Another good argument for this is that the spells lowering toughness or strength targets the whole models split profile and not just a part of it. Would you argue that enfeebling foe only lowers the knights stats? No you would not.

I can see why you would argue for the mounts not getting an extra attack, maybe it is an argument stemming from a percieved RAI. I however feel that it is a bit naive to state that this is the cheesy approach. I would say that the way I am thinking about it is that I look what the book says about it and i cannot find anything as of yet, that doesnt support my line of thinking.

Mounts can have special rules, riders can have special rules, riders and mounts can have different special rules and the text you are referencing is, as i read it and the rulebook states, written to deal with the situations when this occur. I however claim, that by the way the rules are written the mounts and riders in this case are both affected by the special rule since the whole model has mark of khorne. (It is maybe of less importance to note that I do not play regular knights with an extra attack for mounts).

I will now leave this argument since I do not think that it will lead to anything fruitful.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
R3do
Member Avatar
The Warptongue
Mungojerrie
Jan 29 2013, 03:26 PM
Ok. I am going to try to explain my point of view in this issue one final time.

This is what the rule book has to say about it

Page 70
Quote:
 
FRENZY
Certain warriors can work themselves up into a fighting frenzy, a whirlwind of destruction in which all concern for personal safety is overridden in favour of mindless violence.
To represent their fighting fury and lack of self-preservation instincts, Frenzied troops have the Extra Attack and Immune to Psychology special rules (see opposite and page 69).
BERSERK RAGE
If, during the Charge sub-phase, a unit that includes one or more Frenzied models could declare a charge, then it must do so unless a Leadership test is passed. If the Leadership test is foiled, the Frenzied unit must declare a charge against the nearest viable enemy.
A unit that includes one or more Frenzied models cannot choose to restrain pursuit if it beats a foe in close combat. It will either pursue (if the enemy has fled) or overrun (if the enemy was wiped out in combat).
Note that if the enemy is wiped out in combat but the Frenzied unit did not charge that turn (or if the combat was the result of a pursuit or
overrun charge in the same turn), then the Frenzied unit will reform as normal as it has no other choice of action.
In addition, Frenzied models cannot parry


This is pretty straight forward. A model with frenzy has the extra attack rule and ITP. Also berserk rage.
On page 82 the rulebook states:
Quote:
 
CAVALRY AND SPECIAL RULES
• If either the rider or the mount have Frenzy, then the whole model is subject to the Berserk Rage, but only the element with the Frenzy rule gains an Extra Attack.


The validity of this is the fact that part of a model could be subject to frenzy and this would still affect the whole model with its berserk rage. It does NOT state that the mount cannot be frenzied. It states that IF EITHER THE RIDER OR THE MOUNT has frenzy then the whole model is affected by berserk rage, but only the affected element has the extra attack.

This phrase do not state anything about mounts not being able to have frenzy.

The skullcrushers as a unit has mark of khorne. This affects the whole model and thus both juggernaught and knight has frenzy.

The argument I have seen debunking this sort of reasoning is mainly saying that the extra attack special rule says you gain 1 extra attack. I however feel that the argument with the chariot overrides this, as a khorne-marked chariot, which is also a single model would get at least 2 extra attacks. Do you agree?
Another good argument for this is that the spells lowering toughness or strength targets the whole models split profile and not just a part of it. Would you argue that enfeebling foe only lowers the knights stats? No you would not.

I can see why you would argue for the mounts not getting an extra attack, maybe it is an argument stemming from a percieved RAI. I however feel that it is a bit naive to state that this is the cheesy approach. I would say that the way I am thinking about it is that I look what the book says about it and i cannot find anything as of yet, that doesnt support my line of thinking.

Mounts can have special rules, riders can have special rules, riders and mounts can have different special rules and the text you are referencing is, as i read it and the rulebook states, written to deal with the situations when this occur. I however claim, that by the way the rules are written the mounts and riders in this case are both affected by the special rule since the whole model has mark of khorne. (It is maybe of less importance to note that I do not play regular knights with an extra attack for mounts).

I will now leave this argument since I do not think that it will lead to anything fruitful.
+1 to this

As we all can see, we have different opinions about this rule and there is no correct answer. If u won't agree with ur opponent JUST ROLL DICE TO SOLVE THIS and move on.

Can we now stop this pointless arguing and atleast wait for new book if there is some answers given :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jediknight620
Member Avatar
'Zerker
This will go on forever...

The wording is awful. Rothgar is correct.

/thread
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tchar'zhul
Member Avatar
Harbinger of Change
Rothgar is right. I don't see why this honestly dragged on.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rothgar13
Member Avatar
Clanlord
Because some people really, really want +1A on their mounts? I don't know, to be honest. Is it sloppily written? Sure. But still, it's clear enough to me (and several others, from the look of it).
Edited by rothgar13, Jan 30 2013, 04:47 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Tactics · Next Topic »
Add Reply