Radagast vs Mumakil...

Valamir · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:43 am

This does result in a decrease of one's desire to make use of the Mumak, if Radagast can simply toast the thing with a single spell.

ScarpeIron · **Posted:** Tue Mar 13, 2012 2:16 am

I still disagree. - :puppy:

GothmogtheWerewolf · **Posted:** Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:04 am

He cannot toast the thing with one spell.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:41 pm

If he can use Panic Steed on it he can.

ScarpeIron · **Posted:** Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:46 pm

Very true, if you all say that Panic Steed works on the Mumak...then yes the Mumak can be "toasted" on one success of casting Panic Steed.

And, if the commander is killed from the fall (all those s3 you're bound to roll 6's) then yes the Mumak is considered a causality.

Again, if you panic a steed then you are causing it to act against its normal movement. It does NOT want to be panic....and its a Mumak. I hope common sense prevails. It would be great if GW would get a FAQ out asap.

GothmogtheWerewolf · **Posted:** Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:30 pm

Draugluin wrote:

If he can use Panic Steed on it he can.

In ORB, it explicitly states that only spells which deal damage affect the Mumak, so Panic steed does not work in the Mumak. However, in the new sourcebook the statement saying that is missing. Does this mean the rules have changed? Is anything stated explictitly to the contrary? No, not specifically, therefore, one could assume, that Panic steed does not affect the Mumak, especially since the rules state that spells which stop the Mumak moving normally (and the Mumak fleeing the battle would not be moving normally) it is quite safe to assume that RAI is the same as what used to be RAW.

However, this leads on to Fell Beasts and Great Beasts, both of which are listed as being Mounts and neither of which is immune to any form of magic, so Radagast's spells would work on a Fell Beast and on a Great Beast. Unless they rwwrite the rulwe in the FAQ that is.

cereal_theif · **Posted:** Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:51 pm

?? You've always been able to panic steed a fellbeast. But a fellbeast doesnt cost 300pts. It is part of hte fun. Forcing ringwraith to use serious will to stop their dear pet runnign away

GothmogtheWerewolf · **Posted:** Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:19 pm

I never said the rule on Fell Beasts was new, only that I'd only just put thought into the posssbility. The Ringwraith cannot resist the spell, as the Fell Beast itself is the target.

hithero · **Posted:** Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:50 pm

GothmogtheWerewolf wrote:

I never said the rule on Fell Beasts was new, only that I'd only just put thought into the posssbility. The Ringwraith cannot resist the spell, as the Fell Beast itself is the target.

Yes it can. First line of the spell description "This power may only be targeted against a mounted model", riders can resist magical powers.

GothmogtheWerewolf · **Posted:** Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:02 pm

Surely, because the Fell Beast is the target, and not the Ringwraith, the Ringwraith cannot resist it? If not, well, that would even up the abilty a little, well, if the Ringwraith was the Undying that is of course.

Valamir · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:33 pm

I'm pretty certain that riders may resist on behalf of their mounts for the sake of magical powers. And I don't like the idea of the Mumak running off when Radagast looks at it wrong. So I would run with the idea that the Mumak is unaffected by Panic Steed until GW says otherwise. But that's just me, and who am I ?

cereal_theif · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:17 pm

I would say you can resist because it is a model that is targetted.
"This power may only be directed against a mounted model"
Not the mount of the model...

GothmogtheWerewolf · **Posted:** Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:00 pm

hithero wrote:

GothmogtheWerewolf wrote:

I never said the rule on Fell Beasts was new, only that I'd only just put thought into the posssbility. The Ringwraith cannot resist the spell, as the Fell Beast itself is the target.

Yes it can. First line of the spell description "This power may only be targeted against a mounted model", riders can resist magical powers.

It is implied, but nowhere does it say that, though I agree with you know, the wording suggests that the whole mounted model is the target and not the mount. Thanks for reading it more closely than I, but I say I have nevr personally had to deal with Radagast, so I am glad it can be resisted.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:57 am

GW has said in WD that the Nazgul can try and resist for the FB.

cereal_theif · **Posted:** Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:03 pm

We all know you dont take rules from battle reports or lots of weird Devlan Mud happens.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:33 pm

It wasn't a battle report, it was about exactly how to use Radagast effectively. In short, they said use him against Fell Beasts.

GothmogtheWerewolf · **Posted:** Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:44 pm

They also said to make the Undying better in WotR by pairing him with other magicians, as in SBG, even though in WotR his rule only affects enemy magicians. And that was in the Nazgul Tactica.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:10 pm

No it wasn't, it was in WD, one of the ones available to download. It was the second one titled Magic in Middle-Earth part 2 or something. Stop correcting me when you're wrong.

GothmogtheWerewolf · **Posted:** Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:38 pm

It might have been mentioned on "Magic in Middle-Earth part 2" as well, but I am referring to a specific Tactica about Ringwraiths in both WotR and SBG, that was one of the arcticles removed from the GW site as a casualty, the item you are referring to may have the Radagast on it, but it was wrote by the same person (I think) who wrote theone with the mistake in.

In any case, lets just agree that Wraiths can resist it, I only mentioned that as something cerialthief said reminded me of that mistake, I was not trying to disclaim Mr Grumpy.

cereal_theif · **Posted:** Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:59 pm

... LoL

Radagast vs Mumakil...

Who is online