The One Ring
http://ww.one-ring.co.uk/

WitchKing on Fell Beast
http://ww.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=23438		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  DaDarkMarshal [ Sat Jul 14, 2012 11:48 am ]
Post subject:  WitchKing on Fell Beast
Hello. I want to get a Ring wraith on fell beast but there is something bothering me. Since the fell beast is a monstrous mount, does that mean that models fighting it in hand combat are allowed to strike the Wraith if they win the fight even though they are so high off the ground? Or do they have to slay the fell beast first before striking blows on the wraith?

It made more sense that the beast needs to be slayed first to me but I can't find anywhere in the rule book rules regarding striking blows against the rider of a monstrous mount.

Thanks
Author:  tlotrsbg [ Sat Jul 14, 2012 1:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WitchKing on Fell Beast
yeh they can strike at the rider if they wish, its basically just cav with some bonuses
Author:  GothmogtheWerewolf [ Sat Jul 14, 2012 11:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WitchKing on Fell Beast
tlotrsbg is correct. The rules aren't meant to suggest that the Fell Beast is iin the air during the combat phase. All flying monsters land on the ground in every phase except the movement phase, so the rider is a bit closer to the enemy than the model suggests.
Author:  DaDarkMarshal [ Sun Jul 15, 2012 1:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: WitchKing on Fell Beast
Oh ok. i thought that since it is a monstrous mount like a mumak and great beast of gorgorath that you can't strike the rider in combat.

thanks
Author:  tlotrsbg [ Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: WitchKing on Fell Beast
DaDarkMarshal wrote:
Oh ok. i thought that since it is a monstrous mount like a mumak and great beast of gorgorath that you can't strike the rider in combat.

thanks

you see now thats debatable, as the gorgoroth is a monsterous mount I think maybe the orc with the spear can be attacked but just gets recplaced by an orc if he dies, and the mumak ! .. well it says he is a mount for the chieftain but doesnt clarify he is a monsterous mount, I doubt many people play it that you can attack the chieftain in h2h though ! .. these are some of the annoying thingsthat they havent cleared up :( .. most of sbg is flawless, why did they have to slip up on such great models!!!
Author:  tlotrsbg [ Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: WitchKing on Fell Beast
come to think of it it doesnt actually clear the fell beast up as a monsterous mount either, so perhaps its going for them all being obvious? in which case the mumak would get +1 attack on charges and you could hit the chieftain mounting him in h2h I guess :/
Author:  whafrog [ Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WitchKing on Fell Beast
The mumak is beyond a monstrous mount, it has it's own rules which are quite clear. Its move phase is handled completely differently, and no, you can't take a poke at the chieftain if you win a fight with it. Not sure about the beast, I don't have one and haven't used it, but I believe it's also "beyond" a monstrous mount and has its own unique rules.

The disconnect here is thinking of the fell beast as a "monstrous mount like a mumak". Monstrous mounts are just like cavalry, except they do to cavalry what cavalry does to infantry. No other difference I can think of ATM.
Author:  tlotrsbg [ Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WitchKing on Fell Beast
whafrog wrote:
The mumak is beyond a monstrous mount, it has it's own rules which are quite clear. Its move phase is handled completely differently, and no, you can't take a poke at the chieftain if you win a fight with it. Not sure about the beast, I don't have one and haven't used it, but I believe it's also "beyond" a monstrous mount and has its own unique rules.

The disconnect here is thinking of the fell beast as a "monstrous mount like a mumak". Monstrous mounts are just like cavalry, except they do to cavalry what cavalry does to infantry. No other difference I can think of ATM.


the beast actually clarifies that it is a monsterous mount in its rules, also I think its probably correct that the Mumak is played just as the special rules with no extra benifit of being a monsterous mount but its somewhat a guess as it isnt clarified in the rules, I generally dont like to presume and its annoying to have to speculate on special and great models in the game :/.
Author:  whafrog [ Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WitchKing on Fell Beast
It's quite clarified in the rules. It's not clear to you, but that's different. If you have a specific question about the mumak, ask it (though maybe in a different thread).
Author:  tlotrsbg [ Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WitchKing on Fell Beast
whafrog wrote:
It's quite clarified in the rules. It's not clear to you, but that's different. If you have a specific question about the mumak, ask it (though maybe in a different thread).


which book are you counting your rules clarification from?

ok here is a question.. does the Mumak and Chieftain count as a monsterous mount for rules purposes as in the main book it says the Mumak is effectivly his mount and in the fallen realms sourcebook it says he is the warbands captain with the mumak as his mount ? if not why not ?

bear in mind the mumak has the 'Monster' type in the description aswel

is this clear to you?

on a side note I looked into the main rule book and that does state that the guys in the howdah are too far away for h2h fights with the mumak so really this boils down to does he get +1 attack when he charges! heh
Author:  hithero [ Sun Jul 15, 2012 7:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WitchKing on Fell Beast
You've answered this yourself, the rules have 'Monster' in the rules as it's catagory, not monstrous mount. Fluff text plays no part in the rules.
Author:  tlotrsbg [ Sun Jul 15, 2012 8:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WitchKing on Fell Beast
hithero wrote:
You've answered this yourself, the rules have 'Monster' in the rules as it's catagory, not monstrous mount. Fluff text plays no part in the rules.

well yeah but the fell beast also only says monster in the sourcebooks and not monsterous mount, also im not sure it would count as fluff text as its in the same sentence as saying that he is the captain of the warband .. anyway you may be right as the fell beast says monsterous mount in the main rulebook however.
Author:  whafrog [ Sun Jul 15, 2012 11:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: WitchKing on Fell Beast
tlotrsbg wrote:
...so really this boils down to does he get +1 attack when he charges! heh


Ah, I see the issue. I'd say no. Nowhere does it say it acts as cavalry or a monstrous mount, except that it specifically says it knocks all models down if it wins a fight, including monstrous mounts. If it acted like cavalry/monstrous mount it would say that rather than specifying only the knockdown.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/