Page 1 of 1

Irresistable force vs. immovable object

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:09 pm
by Smeagol
Page 35 of the rulebook states that a mount with an attack and fight value of 0 automatically fail the courage test a mount is required to make when it loses its rider.

Aura of Command and the Banner of Arwen Evenstar both state that any friendly models automatically pass any Courage tests they are required to take.

Since we don't play with the Loose Mounts rule, this would appear to allow the forces of Good to dismount horses and not lose the horse. Of course there are only two spellcasters with this spell (Cirdan and Celeborn) and only Halbarad for the banner.

Thoughts?

Re: Irresistable force vs. immovable object

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:02 pm
by ChrisLS
Well, given that GW doesn't make any dismounted horses and it would be a pain in the tush, I'd say the "horse runs" rule would take precedence. Horses aren't really allies, IMO, but more neutral models. Of course, that isn't in the rules, but it should be. :P

Re: Irresistable force vs. immovable object

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:07 pm
by Smeagol
ChrisLS wrote:Well, given that GW doesn't make any dismounted horses and it would be a pain in the tush, I'd say the "horse runs" rule would take precedence. Horses aren't really allies, IMO, but more neutral models. Of course, that isn't in the rules, but it should be. :P


The Loose Mounts optional rule states otherwise. The issue of course is that it is a contradiction, but a horse is still a model once the rider dismounts. Riders of Rohan, that nobody uses anyway, can provide empty horses. :P

Re: Irresistable force vs. immovable object

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:23 pm
by ChrisLS
So shouldn't another model then be able to mount it? It creates too much confusion. Allow the horse to be gone (ie no loose mounts rule) and be done with it.

Re: Irresistable force vs. immovable object

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:37 pm
by BrentS
ChrisLS wrote:Well, given that GW doesn't make any dismounted horses and it would be a pain in the tush, I'd say the "horse runs" rule would take precedence. Horses aren't really allies, IMO, but more neutral models. Of course, that isn't in the rules, but it should be. :P


The plastic horses could be used as loose mounts.

Re: Irresistable force vs. immovable object

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:09 am
by Yakthor
Does this mean my orc trackers on Warg could voluntarily dismount the wargs and allow Black Guard of Barad-Dur to mount them?

I thought without the loose mounts rule, even if the mount stays, it cannot be remounted, only remains as an additional model. I suppose a F0 and A0 horse could be used to block LOS, interfere with movement, and trap models, but I don't see that as being particularly in the spirit of the game so would be uncomfortable using it in play myself.

Re: Irresistable force vs. immovable object

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:45 am
by Smeagol
Yakthor wrote:Does this mean my orc trackers on Warg could voluntarily dismount the wargs and allow Black Guard of Barad-Dur to mount them?

I thought without the loose mounts rule, even if the mount stays, it cannot be remounted, only remains as an additional model. I suppose a F0 and A0 horse could be used to block LOS, interfere with movement, and trap models, but I don't see that as being particularly in the spirit of the game so would be uncomfortable using it in play myself.

No, the rules state only orcs can ride wargs. You can remount a warg. Again it's in the rules.