| Packmaster/Giant Rat Hit Randomization; What about characters? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 25th June 2012 - 03:16 AM (1,479 Views) | |
| Mathusala0 | 14th July 2012 - 05:28 PM Post #16 |
|
The Evil Underlord
![]()
|
I can't even dig out what you guys are arguing about. a character riding a pox rat is cavalry. |
![]() The Glossary of Common Underempire Lingo The Skaven Guide to competitive list building (8th Edition) The Skaven Castle Formation | |
![]() |
|
| CapAmr05 | 14th July 2012 - 07:04 PM Post #17 |
![]() ![]()
|
I believe the term you're looking for is "Reductio Ad Absurdum". I'm taking and reducing it to an extreme consequence of the logic put forth, the "doesn't change troop type" claim has far reaching after effects you haven't broached. The claim that the pox rat keeps its Warbeast troop type, ergo the rider must also keep their Infantry troop type also (because one does not inherit the classification of one's mount, he doesn't become a warbest himself, nor in your logic does he become something else), while only infantry can be affected by the 13th spell, therefore in your ardent press to say that a mounted character does not take on a new troop type (because it's mount stays warbeast), you've opened a pandora's box of unintended absurd extremes, and I'm using an example of such an extreme to highlight that fallacy. If you claim a Warbeast ridden is still a war beast, it does not turn the Character into a warbeast, so a (n originally infantry classed) Character cannot take a look out sir from other warbeasts, read page 99 for look out sirs, the troops around the character must be of the same troop type. Giant Rats still aren't of the same troop type of the RIDER of the PoxRat.
The Character's troop type drives whether or not he can take a Look Out Sir. The pox rat is not a character, it's a mount, the fact that unridden it is a warbeast is inconsequential because the Character's troop type is what opens up his ability to take a Look Out Sir or not. Page 104 and 105 are very clear, there's no generalization, when you put a character ontop of something, that something might have it's own troop type, but once the character is ontop the entire model follows the rules of a whole new troop type. That new troop type dictates how look out sirs can or cannot be taken.... otherwise you aren't really following the rules for that troop type. Riding a Warbeast makes a character a Cavalry Troop type (and only other Cavalry typed models may give him a look out sir). Read the entire paragraph on page 104 (paraphrased), if a Character is riding a horse, wolf, and other horse sized or shaped steeds that have 1 wound then it is typed as a Cavalry mount. What do you think horses qualify as? They're warbeasts too; yet when they are ridden they become Cavalry troop type. Pox Rat is horse shaped (or more specifically pony sized), it has 1 wound. Thus a character riding it should be classed as Cavalry. The pox rat on it's own might be War Beast but when combined with a character it becomes/ follows a new Troop Type. Further the "warbeast" classification that the Pox Rat had prior to mounting does absolutely nothing to grant it's rider to take a look out sir whilst amongst other warbeasts. --Cap Edited by CapAmr05, 14th July 2012 - 07:57 PM.
|
|
Lonewolf Grand Tournament April 28-30 The Beer Phase Podcast Clan Skrittar | |
![]() |
|
| TrueLancer | 14th July 2012 - 07:56 PM Post #18 |
|
Grey Seer
|
The models are not two separate models with one literally riding the other. That's the misrepresentation. Even BASIC, actual, core cavalry models are not "two different dudes combined into one." They're a 'single model' as far as the rules go. With exceptions, you count the base as the 'model' and the stuff on the top of it as a model, no matter how you hobby it up together. Your counter-argument that if a guy rides something he keeps his type isn't relevant... although the model, for all intents and purposes, as per the rules, still 'follows the rules for the mount type and for being a character'. Also, it doesn't have a 'cavalry shape.' It specifically does not have a cavalry shape. It goes on a 40mm by 40mm base. Edited by TrueLancer, 14th July 2012 - 07:57 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| CapAmr05 | 14th July 2012 - 08:00 PM Post #19 |
![]() ![]()
|
The requirement for shape/deminsion for Cavalry Mount is horse size -and/ or- shape. Page 39 of the Skaven book disagrees with you.
Also note that base size is not a required factor on page 104 for Cavalry "size/ shape"; so 104 disagrees with this premise aswell. Further it outright defines a Cavalry mount as being 1 wound. Page 104:
Pox Rat = 1 Wound Pox Rat (Whilst Ridden) = Cavalry Mount = Cavalry Troop type for all rules.
I know it isn't correct, but it is relevant because I'm responding to your claim that the Pox Rat stays typed as warbeast, which opens up Pandora's box... The Absurd Extreme is that if the mount stays Warbeast then the rider must keep his type too, if that happens and the rider keeps his infantry rating you have just opened him up to the 13th, stomps, etc. How does a Pox Rat stay a warbeast type while ridden (when the above quote clearly indicates it does not), but the Rider doesn't stay infantry (when both are dictated to be Cavalry; One model: One Troop Type)? It's logically false, that's what I'm trying to show you in this, it's an erroneous extrapolation of the logic you put forth, to showed the logic is flawed. Answer this: How does a Pox Rat Rider get a look out sir from a Giant Rat (or anything else in the Skaven Army)? Keep in mind, the Character's Troop Type (and the Character's troop type is driven by what he's riding when he's riding) this is what drives look out sir not the original troop type of whatever he's sitting on top of was. (The answer is he can't) --Cap Edited by CapAmr05, 15th July 2012 - 01:01 AM.
|
|
Lonewolf Grand Tournament April 28-30 The Beer Phase Podcast Clan Skrittar | |
![]() |
|
| TrueLancer | 15th July 2012 - 06:13 AM Post #20 |
|
Grey Seer
|
No, you're misquoting things here. Page 104 says this: This bit is important. There are exceptions to these. Next: This is not true. You're mixing background fluff and rules. This isn't how to read the rulebook. The cavalry type is often given to things that are distinctly not horse-sized or horse-shaped. Dark elf riding dinosaurs, for example. On top of that, the very description isn't exactly horse-sized or horse-shaped. The description there is something MUCH different - a pony, not a horse, that is about double the width of a horse if it needs a 40mm by 40mm base. On top of this, the movement value of this "cavalry" is lower than every other horsie in the game. Blah. Finally, consider the Pox Rat mount itself and its section in the book. 1) The mount is not a monster or warbeast unto itself - that is, the only time it comes into play is when it's mounted. It can NEVER go around on its own. It's only function is as a mount, as opposed to something like some dragons or gryphons (which can either fly around causing havok or be a noble steed for some foolhardy hero). 2) The mount was originally typed as a "Verminous Cavalry," making it distinctive and different from regular Cavalry. 3) The mount was errata'd into being a Warbeast. 4) The mount has a distinctly non-Cavalry base. 40mm x 40mm is not what you put cavalry on! 5) The errata could have just said, "Type: Cavalry." Very simple. Very easy. No need to type it as something else if it is intended to just follow the rules for Cavalry. Instead, the Errata clearly specifies that is has a specific type OTHER THAN CAVALRY. This suggests that the idea here is it's different. I'm certainly not saying this is the "best" way to do it or that the rules could be re-written to make a more homogenous, simplified, standard game for every single army. I am agreeing that the rulebook is not very specific. It's unclear. That's what happens when you have terrible editing. But I think it's important that distinctions between armies be respected, else you just have "The Empire with different models" over a dozen times. |
![]() |
|
| Mathusala0 | 15th July 2012 - 06:45 AM Post #21 |
|
The Evil Underlord
![]()
|
jugernaughts might have a thing or 2 to say about that.
and it's a good thing he doesn't read it like that cause he was JOKING. Truelancer I'm gonna show you this passage once. It took me literally half a second to find. and cap has already pointed it out. page 104 of the BRB
done, period, end of discussion.
all of what you just said is completely irrelevant and pointless. because the rules are VERY clear that a character on a single wound mount is counted as cavalry. Edited by Mathusala0, 15th July 2012 - 06:48 AM.
|
![]() The Glossary of Common Underempire Lingo The Skaven Guide to competitive list building (8th Edition) The Skaven Castle Formation | |
![]() |
|
| CapAmr05 | 15th July 2012 - 06:48 AM Post #22 |
![]() ![]()
|
No, I'm really not; where else will the PoxRat Riding Character fall? Chariot? Ridden Monster? Remeber the Character and Mount become 1 Model and follow 1 Troop Type. The Cavalry Rules explicitly apply to the Pox Rats... The entire rules for Cavalry mounts which again you've managed to overlook on page 104.... state only one true measurable qualification for making a Cavalry Mount: If a Mount has 1 wound; it's a Cavalry mount. The size/shape is fluff related within the rules too, I figured I'd throw that in since you were so insistent that a Pox Rat was not similar to the same Shape/ Size as a Horse (which a large Pony can fit into, as someone who has ridden both). There is nothing definitive within the BRB that states the dimensions of a model are similar to a horse nor is there anything within the rule book that states a Cavalry model can only be on one type of base (an erroneous assumption that it can only be a 25x50mm). The part you've overlooked again on page 104:
Again Pox Rat = 1 Wound 1 Wound Mount = Cavalry Mount Base size does not matter! So tell us how the Pox Rat fails to meet this 1 wound requirement....
Dwarves have M3 lower than every other race in the game which has a 4+ M value, does this not this somehow give reason to consider Dwarves not Infantry?!?! (by your proposed comparison one could make that extrapolation) No, Movement value has nothing to do with classifying a Model's Troop Type; so it's irrelevant to the conversation. Movement Rate does not drive Troop Type.
Actually it is; the Pox Rat is a Warbeast. A Woodelf Great Eagle (which can go around on its own) is listed as a Monstrous Beast, but it can also be ridden, does it somehow not become Monstrous Cavalry? No, whilst ridden it transforms into Monstrous Cav. A classification is needed to help dictate which set of rules of the Character should follow given there are 4 Mount Categories the Character could be subject to.
Did you actually read the entry for Verminous Cavalry? It stated the model follows all Cavalry Rules; if it follows all rules for "Normal Cavalry" how is it any different than "normal" Cavalry?
Yes and when ridden, 1 Wound Warbeasts (regardless of shape, movement rate, width, or base size) become Cavalry.... I'm not seeing an issue.
Not true given the one requirement of 1 wound mount provided by page 104. Also; Where does Cavalry have a defined base size? Who says non-monstrous Cavalry can't be on a 40x40? I've never seen anything that says only 25x50mm can be Cavalry Bases. If you look at the 7th edition version of the Pox Rat it specifically said it followed the Normal Rules for Cavalry Mounts yet it also specifically said it was on a 40x40mm base; paradox?
The Errata could have said a lot of things. There is absolutely a need to type it because Cahracters riding Mounts are going to want to take Look Out Sir tests. Look Out Sirs tests are driven from the Troop Type of the Character Model (how have you missed this over the numerous posts?). Look on page 483. Skeletal Steed appears twice, once as a lone entry (listed as Warbeast, but that;s because TK characters can ride them!) then as a combined model listed as Cavalry (Skeletal Steed + Skeletal Horseman). The Skeletal Steed has 1 Wound, that makes it a Cavalry Mount when ridden. You can't classify something as Cavalry until it is mounted; that's why some entries are listed as Monsters, or Monstrous Beasts or Warbeasts; because when they are mounted PER 104 and 105 they take on a differet troop type. The fact that this entry is listed a warbeast indicates to the player that should he mount a character on it; the model should become a Cavalry Model. Just like they entere Monstrous Beast for the Bone Breaker, to indicate <given Mounting Rules> that should a character ride this creature he becomes Monstrous Cavalry. You also Failed to Answer this Truelancer:
Actually Math, Juggernauts are listed as Monstrous Beasts, so when mounted the model turns into Monstrous Cavalry. But that still drives to the whole point, the model when mounted by a Character becomes a different troop type; as the Jugger is concerned, it becomes Monstrous Cavalry. --Cap Edited by CapAmr05, 15th July 2012 - 07:25 AM.
|
|
Lonewolf Grand Tournament April 28-30 The Beer Phase Podcast Clan Skrittar | |
![]() |
|
| Mathusala0 | 15th July 2012 - 07:14 AM Post #23 |
|
The Evil Underlord
![]()
|
Also realized that I'm pretty sure they are actually 50ms not 40s. but whatevs |
![]() The Glossary of Common Underempire Lingo The Skaven Guide to competitive list building (8th Edition) The Skaven Castle Formation | |
![]() |
|
| CapAmr05 | 15th July 2012 - 07:17 AM Post #24 |
![]() ![]()
|
They (Juggers) might be 50x50 ***; they fit perfectly within a Bloodletter unit (they just don't ever get a look out sir). *** And even then, a 50x50 is unusual (but not an automatic disqualifier for) for a model typed as Monstrous Beast/ Monstrous Cavalry; given that most old school Monsters ride a 50x50mm. --Cap Edited by CapAmr05, 15th July 2012 - 07:21 AM.
|
|
Lonewolf Grand Tournament April 28-30 The Beer Phase Podcast Clan Skrittar | |
![]() |
|
| TrueLancer | 15th July 2012 - 09:39 AM Post #25 |
|
Grey Seer
|
Is this just trolling me? Seriously? ....I'm... not saying Dwarves aren't Infantry. They're short, but they're still infantry. Really... Pox Rats != Great Eagles. I never said this. This is not pertinent to the conversation. Also, PLEASE stop taking my quotes out of context and re-changing your own quotes after the fact. The one piece of supporting information that gives you the edge in the argument wasn't the original one you quoted - please don't say it like it was. That's not a question for ME to answer. That's the question I posed to you! What I'm implying is when there's an easier way of dictating what something is (such as just typing in INF or WB or SP into a unit type), why give it another type if that different type doesn't imply it being different? Or to put it another way, if there were a variety of mounts, called, "Verminous Cavalry," then, "Ratty Riders," then "Rat Knight Mounts," then, "The Big Cheese Rat," and they all said they are different types but follow the rules for cavalry, they're referring to the rules on page 87 that are cavalry rules rather than the less specific other sections. There's a lot of stuff here to reply to. But to address the absolutely insane, almost insulting statements -- No. Dwarves are infantry. I'm saying the rulebook is poorly written, not "stupid." No. Base sizes don't matter for what's being discussed. No. Base sizes can vary. I never stated otherwise. All I'm saying is the rulebook is terribly written. It constantly puts rules into a state of flux, i.e. the scout argument or some tricky questions that aren't answered in FAQs/Erratas. My personal belief is that each section was written and proofread individually but not as a whole, so there are confusing, inaccurate, or just plain out wrong parts of it that cause conflict and confusion whether you come from it as a RAW or RAI or even as a 'editor trying to figure out what happened between the writers and the printers.' I'll grant that SOME of it might be a 7th edition holdover, although that excuse falls short due to the fact that the book was specifically supposed to be the introduction to. Then again, wasn't one of you guys the one saying the author should be shot and killed on some other thread? I somehow don't think I'm the only one who thinks there's a "quality issue" involved, although we all may disagree on the level of punishment required. |
![]() |
|
| CapAmr05 | 15th July 2012 - 04:00 PM Post #26 |
![]() ![]()
|
No one is trolling you, if anything your past quotes are trolling you. Everything you've now said is irrelevant is something that you brought up and we responded to what you posted in the earlier conversation. I responded to every single 'reason' you threw out of the 1-5 list of reasons why you thought the Pox Rat was somehow immune to the wording on page 104; and now you're doubling back saying "why are you talking about X, it's irrelevant", when it's you that brought "X" into the conversation in the first place (as an example or as a qualifier for being Cavalry). I even quoted you so you'd know what each response topic was addressing. I was answering your Quotes; some of them were so off-topic or 'absurd' that I responded Reductio Ad Absurdum in return (something that you seem to have not picked up on through numerous posts now).
You brought the movement value up as if it did matter for considering something a Cavalry model; (I know movement doesn't matter, but...) here's your quote:
Your implication is that it's movement 6 was not 'cavalry worthy' because it was less than any other Cavalry model in the game. I gave you an absurd response using that line of logic, stating that no other Infantry has move 3; ergo using your "nothing else of this type moves this slow" qualification logic as a you'd disqualify dwarves from being considered infantry because they aren't as fast as other infantry (just as you'd disqualify Pox Rat from being Cavalry). Obviously that's not the case, but that's how ridiculous your insinuation was, you brought movement up, not us. I'm quite aware that Movement is not a qualifier for a Cavalry model, because page 82 & 104 never broaches the subject of swift movement being a requirement to be a Cavalry model.
Actually you are the one who brought it up, not us, we were just responding to what you had raised....
I'm aware that base size has no relevance in determining a Troop Type, but again we were just responding to your earlier quote.
Then why did you bring up the fact that a Pox Rat can't go around on it's own.... again, I was responding to a direct quote from you.
Also, (since you like the it can't be taken unless it's mounted logic) on page 483 a Skeletal Steed can't be taken by itself but is listed twice in the TK list. We know characters can ride them and by itself the Steed is listed as a Warbeast, however the entry directly above it the Skeletal Steed is ridden by Horsemen and look, the entire model is classed as Cavalry (it doesn't stay troop type Warbeast). You can argue the book is poorly written (in some cases it's an accurate statement), but this particular paragraph on page 104 is straight forward and clear. There is nothing questionable about it a 1 wound ride is a Cavalry Mount.
--Cap Edited by CapAmr05, 15th July 2012 - 06:41 PM.
|
|
Lonewolf Grand Tournament April 28-30 The Beer Phase Podcast Clan Skrittar | |
![]() |
|
| Mathusala0 | 15th July 2012 - 05:30 PM Post #27 |
|
The Evil Underlord
![]()
|
amen to that
To be very clear. the quote "Jeremy Votock should be shot" and all variations of it never mention ANYTHING about killing or harming him (as that would be a breech of forum policy) I leave the word shot ambiguous. he could be getting fired, shot with a water gun, a fire hose, any number of projectile dispensers. I leave it up to the imagination of the reader what happens. all that said, he's actually not that bad of an armybook writer. he did a good job with O&G and it worked out well in his favor. however, the job he did with skaven was appalling, terrible, indiscreetly horrific, messed up, 9 PAGE FAQ!!! back to the topic on hand. |
![]() The Glossary of Common Underempire Lingo The Skaven Guide to competitive list building (8th Edition) The Skaven Castle Formation | |
![]() |
|
| TrueLancer | 15th July 2012 - 10:15 PM Post #28 |
|
Grey Seer
|
Cap, please stop with the hate and rudeness. I don't appreciate it and it's simply not necessary. I don't mind having a discussion, but this condescending tone is entirely out of line. I also see what you're doing and it's not clever or fun at all. Quit it. Some of the things I talked about are not 'rules discussion' things, but rather are different. Complaining that our "mounted models are the slowest in the game" is not me making a claim that Dwarves aren't infantry; it's me making a complaint that is a take-off of a discussion, but it's not evidence for whatever absurd things you're saying. Secondly, stop saying Reductio ad absurdum. I don't think that word means what you think it means and you're not using it correctly. [/small] I said NO SUCH THING. The speed of a unit does NOT make it cavalry or not cavalry. Stop putting (stupid) words into my mouth and then arguing against them. I did not 'bring up movement and that you need to be higher than Movement Value X to be cavalry.' To be clear, nobody is saying that, stop harping on it.
Quit it. Responding to quotes is fine, but picking and choosing, taking out some words, and quoting me out of context is dishonest. Stop it. In my opinion, the words surrounding that quote explain my line of reasoning. If you're not going to read ALL the words, but just the ones you like, consider this discussion done. You're not actually 'discussing' right now. You're just misquoting things and spewing vitriol. If you would like to have a conversation about this topic and it's worth my time to actually write this stuff up in a neat, professional way, that can be entertaining and worthwhile. The forum is certainly the place for it. But if it's just going to be silly, I'm not going to take the time. Well, there's some agreement there ![]() Still, that specific quote doesn't seem very ambiguous... although I suppose a person could be shot "harmlessly," in some manner or another. Concerning 9 pages of FAQ, while some of it is tricky, I would say (playing devil's advocate) that some of it was the edition change and some of it was the dumb intern terrible FAQ writer, answering such dumb questions as Clan Eshin characters in night runner units or how packmasters work. Also, the Addendum probably shouldn't count, either. Still, it is pretty terrible... haven't really examined O&G though, so it's good to hear things there aren't so bad. Edited by TrueLancer, 15th July 2012 - 10:18 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| CapAmr05 | 15th July 2012 - 10:55 PM Post #29 |
![]() ![]()
|
Sorry you read it that way, but I took no words out of your quotes (I copy and paste) and I did not take your quotes out of context (I responded piece by piece to what you've said). You brought up movement and you brought up base Size; I even quoted you on it (no one brought up movement and base size prior to your quotes). I'm not talking down to you, I'm taking the quotes you've given us and I've explained how they either do not matter to the discussion of Troop type, or I've given examples of how your statements taken to an extreme make for an absurd set of results.
I know exactly what the Term means and it's the logical counter I've presented to many of your claims, to help illustrate that your claims are incorrect.
Maybe you didn't mean to say that, but when I read your quote, that's how I interpreted it given the context of the rest of your 5 point argument as why you thought a Pox Rat was not a Cavalry Mount: "On top of this, the movement value of this "cavalry" is lower than every other horsie in the game. Blah." As trying to disqualify the Pox Rat from being cavalry. --Cap Edited by CapAmr05, 15th July 2012 - 10:57 PM.
|
|
Lonewolf Grand Tournament April 28-30 The Beer Phase Podcast Clan Skrittar | |
![]() |
|
| Mathusala0 | 15th July 2012 - 10:58 PM Post #30 |
|
The Evil Underlord
![]()
|
er truelancer dispite what cap may or may not have ment. and what you may or may not actually mean (I can't tell at this point) the rules on page 104 are still the primary point which you see, to either be dodging or at least have not given (and I do not mean offense) a clear answer. A character on a pox rat is a cavalry model via the rules on page 104. he is treated as using all the rules for a character treated as cavalry, he may not gain a lookout sir for being in a unit of giant rats. do you agree/disagree and if you disagree please post a valid rules quote that would invalidate the above. no speculating or RAW vs RAI. we do not need another 6 page argument over something that is trivial and well written when we have so many unique and poorly written things to deal with. at the end of the day RAI makes no difference because it's the RAW that we play with. Edited by Mathusala0, 15th July 2012 - 11:00 PM.
|
![]() The Glossary of Common Underempire Lingo The Skaven Guide to competitive list building (8th Edition) The Skaven Castle Formation | |
![]() |
|
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skaven Discussion · Next Topic » |












