All times are UTC


It is currently Thu Dec 12, 2024 1:23 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: High Ground's Gusting Winds
PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:32 am 
Wayfarer
Wayfarer
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:41 am
Posts: 38
Location: Offutt AFB, NE
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.....
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 6:49 am 
Loremaster
Loremaster
Offline

Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 6:37 pm
Posts: 1006
Location: Medway, Kent UK
Images: 1
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.
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:34 pm 
Kinsman
Kinsman
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:57 pm
Posts: 149
Location: Canada
what if the mumakil is on the hill?

_________________
When Isengard marches to war their is no stopping them.
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 12:47 pm 
Loremaster
Loremaster
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:58 pm
Posts: 1332
Location: Ha, wouldn't you like to know.
Images: 4
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
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:53 pm 
Wayfarer
Wayfarer
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:41 am
Posts: 38
Location: Offutt AFB, NE
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.

_________________
hmmmm.....
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 8:03 pm 
Loremaster
Loremaster
Offline

Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 6:37 pm
Posts: 1006
Location: Medway, Kent UK
Images: 1
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.
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:56 pm 
Loremaster
Loremaster
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:48 pm
Posts: 1979
Location: Birmingham, UK
Images: 6
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.

_________________
"There are few left in Middle Earth like Aragorn, son of Arathorn." - Gandalf, Many Meetings
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:11 pm 
Ringwraith
Ringwraith
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:05 pm
Posts: 3140
Location: Canada
Images: 4
No, it's in its own category.
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:56 pm 
Loremaster
Loremaster
Offline

Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 6:37 pm
Posts: 1006
Location: Medway, Kent UK
Images: 1
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.
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 6:23 pm 
Loremaster
Loremaster
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:48 pm
Posts: 1979
Location: Birmingham, UK
Images: 6
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
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:57 pm 
Ringwraith
Ringwraith
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:05 pm
Posts: 3140
Location: Canada
Images: 4
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.
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:28 pm 
Loremaster
Loremaster
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:48 pm
Posts: 1979
Location: Birmingham, UK
Images: 6
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)

_________________
"There are few left in Middle Earth like Aragorn, son of Arathorn." - Gandalf, Many Meetings
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:59 pm 
Loremaster
Loremaster
Offline

Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 6:37 pm
Posts: 1006
Location: Medway, Kent UK
Images: 1
No one's argueing, you're just dissagreing with everybody else :)
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:02 pm 
Loremaster
Loremaster
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:48 pm
Posts: 1979
Location: Birmingham, UK
Images: 6
hithero wrote:
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
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: