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.

_________________
hmmmm.....

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.

what if the mumakil is on the hill?

_________________
When Isengard marches to war their is no stopping them.

It is a monstrous mount so it isn't affected I don't think.

_________________
"War does not determine who is right, only who is left."
- Bertrand Russel

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.

_________________
hmmmm.....

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.

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

_________________
"There are few left in Middle Earth like Aragorn, son of Arathorn." - Gandalf, Many Meetings

No, it's in its own category.

Please don't 'think', check the facts first with the rulebook and be certain, as false information leads to confusion.

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"?

_________________
"There are few left in Middle Earth like Aragorn, son of Arathorn." - Gandalf, Many Meetings

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.

_________________
"There are few left in Middle Earth like Aragorn, son of Arathorn." - Gandalf, Many Meetings

No one's argueing, you're just dissagreing with everybody else

I'm agreeing with you now.

_________________
"There are few left in Middle Earth like Aragorn, son of Arathorn." - Gandalf, Many Meetings