Saying "it's a banner because it doesn't say it's not" is the most ridiculous argument possible. Does that mean that Dwarf Warriors can strike at the same time as Monsters because it doesn't say that they can't? By your logic, yes.

I don't deny that the Rohan Royal Banner should be used as a Banner, probably with the Army Banner rule. I think it's unfair to say the unit has a banner as standard because you have to pay the 50pts for the Royal Standard, which is where the banner lies. The one thing that I can't disagree more with though, is saying they have a banner because it doesn't say that they don't.

Wrong. The rules do say that dwarf warriors can't strike before monsters. The dwarf warrior profile specifically says they are an infantry unit. Then going to the base rules in the Fight Phase section, the rules clearly state that Infantry models strike after Monsters. Therefore deductive reasoning would show us that the dwarf warriors, who are clearly infantry models, strike after a Troll, which is clearly a monster. I understand the point you're trying to portray but that was a poor example.

_________________
http://knightscharge.wordpress.com/
- My miniature gaming blog, sorry for lack of LOTR content right now.

I'm just quoting the book, its not an argument. Its the only rule I see where you can interpret using common sense and it only works for unique rules. Its even more ridiculous to say its not a banner and that's why I imagine GW wrote that in there. Its an army banner with a special rule, no question.

_________________
http://drinkingwotr.blogspot.com/ - Links to my CrAzY House Rules, Games and 'poor man's' terrain.

Wow this is still rumbling on.

Well, when in doubt consider the source material. This game is after all an abstraction of the War of the Ring as depicted in the books/film, and any attendant material added for flavour or clarification by GW*. As I saw in another thread.. if in doubt in the SBG rules follow the source books and text for common sense. So same here. You might have to House rule it but i would allow Sauron the Overlord rule and the Rohan and Gondor banner to be army banners, even if I am facing them. It really looks to be an oversight and the intention is made plain elsewheer in the text. This isnt a rule system with a world created around it (like other 40k or fantasy) but a way to have fun toasting elvies or spitting orcses and still keep the feel and flavour of the seminal fantasy epic.

*Of course it doesnt mean GW alwasy interpret correctly... Cirdan clearly at the end of RotK is described as having a beard. The model does not. Now bearded elves may go against the now popular image of tall pointed eared skinny beings as being elves, and with no facial hair. But as that image more or less entirely comes from Mr JRRT's, it does open some conversion possibilities

_________________
A second Edition for The War of the Ring:http://wessexcodex.wordpress.com

Taking the War in Middle earth to a new level!

I think everyone is agreed that it's an error and most people evn agree that it should be an army banner and probably over half even say it's a banner too.

I'm not saying otherwise - I'm arguing with the reasoning.

In fact, whilst my example was poor, it was an example of which there is none for your argument. Secondly, it requires deduction, rather than specification which seems to be the logic that you're using, simply referring back to the fact that my example was analogous to your theory of why it counts. Lastly, it is a fact that you go with what the rules DO say, not what they NEGLECT to say. Fortunately, you understand the point I was trying to make (regardless of how poorly I did it) - bottom line is, that the point I made was valid and saying "it is because it fails to say that it isn't" isn't valid.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com