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

High Ground's Gusting Winds
http://test.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=18246		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  War_Illithid [ Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:32 am ]
Post subject:  High Ground's Gusting Winds
So let's say we were playing the LoME scenario 'The High Ground'. Would the 'Gusting Winds' rule cause mounted models to be thrown? I can't find any place where it says any time a mounted model would be knocked down the rider is thrown, but they certainly set that as the precedent with examples given.

Thanks.
Author:  hithero [ Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:49 am ]
Post subject: 
There is no exclusion for cavalry in the scenario, so yes, when a cavalry model is knocked to the ground, then the horse is lost. Exactly the same as being charged by monstrous mounts or sorcerous blasted.
Author:  isengard owns [ Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
what if the mumakil is on the hill?
Author:  spuds4ever [ Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
It is a monstrous mount so it isn't affected I don't think.
Author:  War_Illithid [ Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
hithero wrote:
There is no exclusion for cavalry in the scenario, so yes, when a cavalry model is knocked to the ground, then the horse is lost. Exactly the same as being charged by monstrous mounts or sorcerous blasted.


But where does it say that a any time a cavalry model is knocked down it loses its mount? In other situations it states specificaly what happens during that time, i.e. sorcerous blast or monstrous mounts charging. Similarly, where does it say that monstrous mounts aren't affected by knock down affects. Once again, the exceptions are built in with the abilities that cause the knock down, but this is not the case with this scenario's rule. It's entirely possible that I missed where these things are stated, but I can't find them.
Author:  hithero [ Mon Apr 26, 2010 8:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
Loose Mounts rule, page 72.
Mumak on hill, read the Mumaks special rules - they don't get knocked down - ever.
Monstroua Mounts are effected, a Mumuk isn't a MM.
Author:  General Elessar [ Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
hithero wrote:
Monstroua Mounts are effected, a Mumuk isn't a MM.


I think it is a Monstrous Mount, it just can't get knocked down.
Author:  whafrog [ Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
No, it's in its own category.
Author:  hithero [ Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
General Elessar wrote:
hithero wrote:
Monstroua Mounts are effected, a Mumuk isn't a MM.


I think it is a Monstrous Mount, it just can't get knocked down.


Please don't 'think', check the facts first with the rulebook and be certain, as false information leads to confusion.
Author:  General Elessar [ Tue Apr 27, 2010 6:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
I've looked it up and I still think I'm right: for a model to qualify as a monstrous mount it must be a mount with at least Strength 6; according to that the Mumak is a monstrous mount. In the Mumak's rules I couldn't find a quote saying it's not a monstrous mount.

By the way, what's the difference between "Mumak" and "Mumakil"?
Author:  whafrog [ Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
General Elessar wrote:
I've looked it up and I still think I'm right: for a model to qualify as a monstrous mount it must be a mount with at least Strength 6; according to that the Mumak is a monstrous mount. In the Mumak's rules I couldn't find a quote saying it's not a monstrous mount.


It's not a mount like other cavalry. That's why cavalry and monstrous mounts have their own chapter, and the Mumak has it's own chapter in the rules. It has its own rules for being shot, movement, being affected by magic, etc.

Therefore, saying it's a monstrous mount is only distracting and irrelevant. It provides no clarity. It's a Mumak, nothing else.
Author:  General Elessar [ Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
whafrog wrote:
General Elessar wrote:
I've looked it up and I still think I'm right: for a model to qualify as a monstrous mount it must be a mount with at least Strength 6; according to that the Mumak is a monstrous mount. In the Mumak's rules I couldn't find a quote saying it's not a monstrous mount.


It's not a mount like other cavalry. That's why cavalry and monstrous mounts have their own chapter, and the Mumak has it's own chapter in the rules. It has its own rules for being shot, movement, being affected by magic, etc.

Therefore, saying it's a monstrous mount is only distracting and irrelevant. It provides no clarity. It's a Mumak, nothing else.


I'm still not convinced...

Why are we arguing about this anyways? It doesn't effect the rules significantly, if at all. Let's just drop it. 8)
Author:  hithero [ Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
No one's argueing, you're just dissagreing with everybody else :)
Author:  General Elessar [ Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
hithero wrote:
No one's argueing, you're just dissagreing with everybody else :)


I'm agreeing with you now.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/