1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

8th Ed. steed of shadows 2Q

Discussion in 'Rules Help' started by Walgis, Apr 17, 2011.

  1. Walgis
    Ripperdactil

    Walgis New Member

    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    first:
    i cast it on skink chief with war speer on ancient stegadon, as there is no wording in that only model on foot i guess that the skink ant the stegadon flys quite well :)
    second:
    i cast it on slann that is in TG unit, so now what happens? in fluff they suround slann and dont let him go any where without them, but now slann is flying! what happens?
     
  2. Caneghem
    Carnasaur

    Caneghem New Member

    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ancient steg with chief, he can definitely fly. The Slann must always join a temple guard unit and stay there, so alas no flying the Slann around (nor his unit).
     
  3. Walgis
    Ripperdactil

    Walgis New Member

    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ok, so i have a nice new cool tactik :)
    Shadow lore is realy a great one, anti war machines/stanks/sphinxes, awsome strenght, making enemy elite units like skinks :)
     
  4. Cravenus
    Cold One

    Cravenus New Member

    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    why would the spell affect a chief with steg, the spell clearly states a character, which ill admit that the chief is, but hes also on the mount, and theres not really a mechanic for having him leave the mount.
     
  5. Walgis
    Ripperdactil

    Walgis New Member

    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    yes ytheres no mechanic so he flyies with the stegadon.
     
  6. Cravenus
    Cold One

    Cravenus New Member

    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    except it doesn't say character and his mount, just the character, since the character but not the mount gets to move, he cant......

    by all means support your argument with something better than "cuz i said" some example of a similar tell working in this way, because remember, if the rules don't say you can(explicitly) then you can't.
     
  7. Caneghem
    Carnasaur

    Caneghem New Member

    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It simply says it moves "a character". The old Steed of Shadows spell specifically stipulated, "only single characters on foot". Could possibly need a FAQ, but mounts are typically considered part of a character's unit.. no points for killing them separately etc.
     
  8. asrodrig
    Carnasaur

    asrodrig New Member

    Messages:
    1,019
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It doesn't say anything about it in the FAQ, but based on Canaghem's reasoning, I'd be inclined to agree.
     
  9. Walgis
    Ripperdactil

    Walgis New Member

    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well if theres no Faq i agree with Caneghem mount is a part of character bought with him. it would be the same as to say that you can fly only the character thus leaving all the magic items behind because the spell doesnt say magical items, as magical items and mounts ar bought for the character.
     
  10. NIGHTBRINGER
    Slann

    NIGHTBRINGER Second Spawning

    Messages:
    77,500
    Likes Received:
    248,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This definitely opens up some possibilities, and could be extended to a carnosaur in larger games :D

    It's especially cool, because the casting value is so low.
     
  11. Cravenus
    Cold One

    Cravenus New Member

    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So your playing someone, and you cast the spell, on the character(not the mount, just the character) and start moving the mount, and your opponent says no.

    If it said unit, or mount, then I'd say yes, but it doesn't, just character.

    while I'd probably agree that GW should FAQ the spell(heck they've FAQd stupider questions) its a lot more reasonable to not allow this, then it is to say "I cast this spell on this rider, now I move the mount"
     
  12. Walgis
    Ripperdactil

    Walgis New Member

    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i dont get your argument..

    Look at army book Heroes> skink chief 55 in the rigth there are options for his equipment and mount also.
    So in your logic, the spell flyes only the character thus leaving all the weapons he has, all the shields everything just character, because sword isnt a cahracter. but sword is just equipment just like stegadon in this case.

    i guess your argument comes from that in 7ed it was model on foot only, but guess what its 8ed and magic has changed drasticaly. so does the spell.

    if it will be faques that it works only on models on foot ok its good spell still, but now it doesnt say anything about the model.

    EDIT:
    on other spells is written models on foot only. and theres not writen this on steed of shadows.
     
  13. Cravenus
    Cold One

    Cravenus New Member

    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    no, his weapons and shields are equipment, the stegadon is a mount, by your argument I'd say, sure the skink flys away, leaving the stegadon.

    so which is more reasonable, not RAW but RAI, allowing the spell which clearly doesn't say mount, or unit, just character(albbiet not on foot) to also affect his mount, or to allow it to affect the mount.

    all I'm saying is that the spell targets the character, allowing him(not the mount) to move, since he cant move(he has to stay on the mount) he doesn't move, or the character leaves the mount, which has no actual mechanic or precedence in the current rules. transferring the spell to the mount is stupid, ignoring the fact that the spell doesn't say character on foot, it only targets the character and not the mount, thus the mount gets no benefit, thus it cant fly anywhere.

    also by your argument I can cast pann's impenetrable pelt(which targets a character) and have it affect his mount as well.
     
  14. ThakCo
    Skink

    ThakCo New Member

    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In the previous edition it specified character on foot. This edition it does not specify on foot. This to me means that Games Workshop made the decision to make it affect models not on foot specifically. Otherwise they would have just left the wording as it was. So is there any type of character that is not on foot and doesn't have a mount? If there isn't (and I can't think of any) then I can't see the specific dropping of "on foot" to imply anything except mounted characters (and their mounts) can be affected by stead of shadows.
     
  15. Caneghem
    Carnasaur

    Caneghem New Member

    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is pretty much my line of reasoning.. we're trying to guess at what the intent was for the spell. I'm the last person to try to wheedle an advantage out of a poorly written rule, and I tend to side with the intent of a rule. BUT, two major changes happened with Steed of Shadows in this edition. 1) the qualifier "models on foot" has been dropped in this edition and 2) you can no longer charge using the spell. Number 2 seems like a pretty big downtweak, with 1 being a bit of compensation.
     
  16. Cravenus
    Cold One

    Cravenus New Member

    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    except the spell isn't targeting the mount, just the character. So yes the skink chief is a LEGAL target for the spell, does he get anything out of it? no, sadly.

    NOW if he was on a horned one he would be able to as the horned one is cavalry(chiefs on terradons qualify fr this too) they're both counted as one model, BRB pg 104 "If a character has a cavalry mount, the whole model is treated as having the troop type 'cavalry' and follows all the rules for both characters and cavalry models."
    .
    It's worth noting that this exception is only under cavalry, not monstrous cavalry, ridden monster, or chariots.
     
  17. TheRolfgar
    Chameleon Skink

    TheRolfgar New Member

    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I fail to see how him buying a cavalry mount is different from buying another kind of mount. You can argue that the unit type is different, however the spell does not state a unit type. It affects a single model, and a character on any mount is a single model.
     
  18. Walgis
    Ripperdactil

    Walgis New Member

    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    now you just failed. cavaly is a type, riden monster is a type also. so now your arguing with your self.
    Mount is buyed in the same maner as a magical weapon or mundane shield etc. so in your logic as i said in previous post he wwould be able to fly without his weapon? no. unles ofcourse you will state that the weapon is the charecter itself wich is not.

    your argument with the beast spell, only the char would get +3 T because its two profile model and the spell says it works on character, if the spell stated model than the mount would get it too. as for skink on stegadon its chars model because the stegs is bought and brought with skink chief.
     
  19. Coatl
    Temple Guard

    Coatl New Member

    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    actually, no they are not. characters and their mounts are treated as seperate models (see allocation of wounds from shooting). also, cc attacks may be directed at them seperately. why? because they are seperate models. cavalry are treated as an extension of the rider, you use all of the riders characteristics and may attack with the cavalry mount in cc. when the rider is killed, sois the cavalry mount. not true with ridden monsters. the wording of the spell in 7th edition has nothing to do with this spell. as you said, we're in 8th edition :). andddd as for the "models on foot" issue, i know of a certain toad whose not on foot :D
     
  20. ThakCo
    Skink

    ThakCo New Member

    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just want to point out that a certain toad's unit type is infantry and is therefore classified as "on foot" :p

    More to the point however, if I understand the argument here properly, there is a distinction between cavalry (treated as a single model) and everything else (ridden monster, monsterous cav, etc.). Further, because of this distinction cavalry may be targets of stead of shadows but things like ridden monsters may not be. I can see the point, but it is a fine line to draw. I wonder if this question has been asked on other forms before.
     

Share This Page