The question is simple: Can a character choose to take a mount from his list and also be equipped with the Horned One? Expounding: A Horned One is considered an enchanted item that can be destroyed via spells that target enchanted items courtesy of the official FAQ. Moreover, it's never referred to as a mount so a model with it on a cold one model would simply be modeled WYSIWYG with the enchanted item that functions AS IF it were a cold one. Morever, there is precedent in that you can take a mundane weapon from a characters list but then also a magical weapon as well. It's not a perfect example of course as the uses for mounts and weapons are different but is a good example in that they share the same circumstances. Also, for those that would insist that it is still a mount, no where in the BRB does it mention not being able to take more than one mount. This limitation on mounts, much like hand weapons, is only imposed in the army list where it says "One Choice Only" in which case the Horned One is not on that list, thus not constrained by that limitation. My Opinion: You could take a Carnosaur and the Horned One much like a mundane hand weapon and a magical hand weapon. Magical weapons contain rules that state that you must select the magical weapon over any mundane weapons but mounts do not have any such rules (aside from the idea that it's not a mount anyway). So you mount your model with it's enchanted item on the Carnosaur and the Horned One would be 'hidden' or 'stuffed away' as would a mundane hand weapon when a magical one is used in it's place. Then once the Carnosaur is slain, the Cold One model is used to represent the Horned One not as a mount but as an appropraite representation of the enchanted item. What does everyone else think?
no they can not the horned one becomes his mount the general consus is that the horned one is kinda of a waste of points if you want your saurus to move faster use a cold one which is cheaper and doesn't take up magic points or use the charm and when using a mount they typically die when the rider dies unless they are monstrous like a carno
LMAO I'm using this magic mount, as soon as you destroy it I'm just going to pull this carnosaur out of my pocket..... You are clutching at straws. The Horned One rules start with 'Cold One', and in exactly the same way as some magic weapons follow the rules for the mundane version (warspear starts with 'lance' etc) this means the horned one follows the rules for a cold one which counts as a mount.
First, you should consider some of the other inane rulings that GW has made before mocking someone. Moreover, using my logic, it would be impossible to start with anything but the carnasuar as the carnasaur is a mount and the Horned One is not; the Horned One would only need to be represented on the model per WYSIWYG once it's in use or has a purpose and otherwise would be 'hidden' away like a mundane hand weapon. Second, the 'Cold One' in the description actually has no precedent set before it especially not the one you qouted for magical weapons as page 120 of the BRB states 'magic weapons always ignore any rules that apply to an ordinary weapon of the same type unless otherwise specified..." which means the only reason they put things like 'Spear" is not becuase it has any traits of a spear but just to describe how it should be represented on the model and perhaps how many hands it takes to use. Thirdly, as I've said before, there are numerous reasons why even if you were to consider it a mount (which it isn't) it doesn't mean that it still can't be chosen by your character. (please reference OP) Lastly, I don't believe it's clutching at straws when GW decides to do something crazy and make what would typicly be a mount choice into an enchanted item and am only surprised that someone else hasn't thought of something like this before now.
Firstly, why would you want to do this? Secondly, I don't see anyone mocking you. I do see a pretty laughable idea. If you're trying to say that an enchanted item, that is ridden around isn't actually a mount, then what do you propose to call it? I can definitely understand your line of thinking using the rules but I would say that the general consensus on this website, most tournaments and just about any where else won't let you do this. Wether the carnosaur comes out first or the cold one, it doesn't seem to make any sense from a game perspective, most certainly from a fluff perspective and even from a rules perspective. I'd agree, clutching at straws. You have a very interesting hypothetical argument. I'd advise not putting too much stock into it though. It's really a long shot that will most likely just cause problems for you.
When an idea isn't laughable to the one presenting it, it's generally considered mocking or patronizing to treat the idea as if it were but thats something your parents should have taught you. I propose to call it an enchanted item. Thats what it is, and thats how GW defines it since it follows more rules for an enchanted item than it does a mount; i.e., being able to be destroyed without destroying the rider, etc. I see your point in that it would seem you would be riding your enchanted item but bare in mind it would be operating AS IF it were a cold one in all respects but not one. Just becuase someone casts their sword at a tree does not make it an arrow, just a sword operating as if it were one. Disagreeing with me and not letting me do something are two different things but brings up an excellent point; Suppose I wanted to do this, where in the rulebook would you find a way to stop me? Perhaps in the army book? This is what I'm asking as honestly I agree the idea is a bit fishy at best but would still like to know. As for a practical purpose, I would take it with a carnosaur and if the carnosaur died I'd still have a character that gets the +2 armor save, extra str 4 attack, ability to cuase/be immune to fear and increased mobility without the threat of stupidity; consider it a 35 point insurance policy. Really, so far every response hasn't even addressed a single issue raised in the OP so I would request maybe a focus more on that and less on whatever straw obsession people have and whom are clutching them.
to straighten this out i looked at the character page lords it says cold one carnosaur choose one and in the description of the horned one it says cold one so with that in mind i think your idea is bust sorry if i offended you with my earlier post hope this clears it up though and i did see what you were going for
First off, this is just a friendly forum where YOU go to discuss rules, read tactics, army lists, etc. You really shouldn't be so rude, no one mocked you, the idea of having something as big as a carnosaur in your back pocket is funny on its own, regardless of your idea (though I do see it as a funny idea myself) Secondly, your mistaken on that when a magic item/weapon states "spear" its just for modelling. If it says "Spear." or "Counts as a Spear." it has ALL the rules for spears, as well as a magical power. Ex: Stegadon War-Spear - Lance. In addition, the bearer's mount inflicts 2d6+1 impact hits rather than the normal 1d6+1. That means the weapon IS a lance, with ALL its rules, and its magic effect. Even if the item didn't state "In addition" it applies. This means your causing 2d6+1 impact hits, and getting +2 strength on the charge like a normal lance would give you. Therefore as previously stated, The Horned One counts as a Cold One, Which is a mount, therefore you can't have it and a carnosaur or a second cold one. The Horned one though also has ALL the rules of a normal Cold one, except for where its magical powers state otherwise. It still causes fear, is Thick-Skinned, just like the rules for a normal cold one. Also if you actually tried to play it out in a game, I doubt anyone would let you because of how ridiculous the idea is of effectively having two mounts. I understand GW sometimes has crappy wording, and if your strict to playing to the letter sometimes things like that could be theorized. But in this case it is CLEARLY stated how your idea is an impossibility. Nice try though...
Oh no, I'm sorry to you, I missed your post entirely and you have good points so I apologize. I knew that Cold One was in the description for the Horned One but unfortunatlly this doesn't help much as it neither follows implicitly the precedent for magical weapons qouted earlier nor has there been anything like it in any other army book. Also, in regards to the 'one choice only' the Horned One is not on that list. Also, I'm really honestly not trying to rule lawyer to actually see this is play but it is a really interesting idea I would like to see explored. I think it might change the tone of the conversation to point that out, that i'm not trying to sneak this model into a list or cheat anyone. I do however blame GW for doing something..pardon me but stupid and listing a mount anywhere near an enchanted item without further elaboration. Then again, something tells me maybe it's a spark of genuis and someone realized we don't want to waste 35 points of valuable treasure points on something we can already get for 30 (or less) points with one inch less of movement and stupidity which we have a decent chance of passing already. Maybe the intent was for it to be an insurance policy. Think about this too, that no skink of any kind is allowed to ride a cold one yet are able to take the Horned One. That goes a long way to settling any disputes over wither it's in the list or not as 'one choice only', etc but also furthers the idea that maybe it was meant to be used by skink priests to get outta danger should they're stegadon be taken down or some such. Firstly I wasn't being rude, just called it like it was. Perhaps YOU should respect the fact that forums are nothing without people visiting it and respect ideas a little more than make snide jokes and then accuse people of being rude. Sure a Carnosaur in the back pocket might be funny, and so are insults that make fun of people or other idea's but it wasn't my joke and didn't further any point so I don't find it funny. Secondly, YOUR wrong according to page 121 of the BRB and if you find it hard to believe then take it up with any number of Dwarf players that have to spend points on a Master Rune of Kragg the Grimm. Our war-spear is a typo and RAW would not allow it to operate as a lance.
eh?? The first word under the war spear is "lance". So it inherits all the properties of a lance, that's why the next bit says "in addition..." i.e. in addition to being a lance. Dwarf players have to use the master rune of krag the grim because the rules for runic items specifically state that they lose all other properties they did have, like great weapons conferring +2 strength etc. I agree that GW putting a cold one as an enchanted item seems a bit strange, but if it says "cold one" under the rules for it, then it's a cold one and inherits all the properties of a cold one, like +2 scaly skin etc
Those are specific rules to how dwarf rune weapons work, which don't apply to this conversation, or lizardmen magic weapons. It is says "Lance." it has the rules for a lance, the fact that you don't know this is surprising since your quoting page numbers of the BRB. Also, since you did bring up how a forum works, you must know that were here having fun, and discussing rules and tactics for fun, and to help eachother. Were not trying to mock you, and make jokes at your expense. Were trying to help you understand the rules better. And when everyone else says "Sorry, thats not the way the rules work." you should take our advice, and not be so stubborn about your idea. We did look into the theory like you wanted, but surprisingly enough, the wording is simple to understand. You can't take horned one and cold one, or horned one and another mount, like the carnosaur. And now that, what, 5 people have told you can't do it, you should move on, its pretty clear that this conversation has run its course. If it actually were possible, I'm sure a long conversation would follow, about uses, and how it is funny and ridiculous. But its not possible...
Seeing as how I didn't even have time to get home and post before the conversation pretty much ruled the possibility of this happening out, I'll post my thoughts anyways. I concure 100% with what has been said. While it is an enchanted item, taking another mount and this item renders it useless because of all the reasons stated above. I don't intend to stoke the flames here but: SOULDUST, I have a tendancy to offer my opinion on these boards freely and will continue to do so. You are welcome to disagree with me if your opinion differs, as that makes for a good discussion. I find the idea laughable. That means in no way that I am mocking you. It means I find the idea entertaining and that while I would never use this tactic in a game it does intdroduce a new hypothetical tactic that obviously has not had much thought or discussion. If you feel my statements were made towards you in a negative way, I apologize. If you do find a post offensive, we have a great mod team whom you should report the post to, leave it at that and continue the discussion. I think you'll be very satisfied with their work.
Let me start off by saying that I browse plently of forums as anyone with free time does and that I chose to post here becuase everyone seems knowledgeable of the subject (lizardmen) and respectful to one another. I understand that the idea at first glance is absurd so can understand how it might be found amusing so I apologize if I overreacted in that sense and would like to say I do respect everyone on these forums for their insight and opinions; otherwise I wouldn't waste time by arguing a point or taking the time to post at all. So, all in all, thank you for the opinions so far and those to come. However, I think theres still an issue. You see, Dwarves have no special rules in regards to runes and wither they still posess normal qualities of weapons. Page 44 of their army book does say: “Note that although Dwarfs may inscribe runes on weapons, none of the bonuses/penalties for the original weapon apply. The fact that the weapon is magical supercedes any normal rules for such weapons.” This is only restating the rule found on page 121 of the BRB that say: “Magic weapons always ignore any rules that apply to an ordinary weapon of the same type unless otherwise specified in the description of the weapon”. This means anything that says ‘lance’ (thus indicating it’s type and nothing more) would not carry any abilities of an actual lance unless the description gave it those abilities (by bassicly spelling it out) or says ‘counts as’. For an example of this, please reference items such as the High Elf ‘Star Lance’ where lance is given in the description to indicate nothing more than the type of weapon and then it says “This weapon follows the rules for lances...”. Lastly to this point is the Dwarven army book again on page 43: “It is important to remember that a runic item is no different in principle to any other magic item, and all the usual rules for magic items still apply” meaning that Dwarfes are not exempt for the rules on page 121 of the BRB hence the Master Rune of Kragg Grimm. In summary of this point, if it doesn't spell out the weapons abilities or say 'counts as' then the words 'lance'', 'spear', etc are only indicating the type of the weapon and nothing more. Aside from all of that which could be it’s own discussion, the Horned One is not a cold one. It is an enchanted item that possesses the qualities of a cold one. The reason why this subtle difference is important is becuase it further exemplifies that the Horned One is not a mount choice but only an enchanted item which even GW supports that idea. Another note is that you can select a mundane great weapon for your character (which also states “One Choice Only”) but then turn around and select a magical great weapon as well. The “One Choice Only” does not apply to the Horned One given that it’s the same circumstances exactly. Hell, there isn’t even a listing for it for skinks yet they can take it so that “One Choice Only” arguement is as void as can be. Not ignoring that point but putting it aside for now, lets assume the Horned One is a mount for arguments sake. Where in any resource for the game does it say it’s not possible to take two mounts? It seems perfectly reasonable that if you can take two weapons, one mundane the other magical, that you can take two mounts, one mundane the other magical. The biggest difference when comparing those two is that there are indeed rules for magical weapons but nothing for magical mounts becuase until this SNAFU I don’t believe they ever existed.
I'll believe it when I see you model a horned one as well as a cold one onto the same 25x50mm base. The way I see it, a horned one is simply a magic cold one with a couple stat changes. He has the thick-skinned special rule from being defined as a cold one in his description, which makes the horned one a mount by nature of him providing an armour save for his rider. And Dwarf runes have no relevance here, they are totally isolated from the situation. They're not even items.
Well, your idea certainly does have alot to back it up, doesn't it? I can see the wording, and I understand where your coming from with it, but... I don't have a rulebook or such infrount of me, but I find it hard to believe this could possibly be done. With some of those extra points made, I can see the argument alot clearer. Still I really think thats playing by the word a little too tightly. As for the magical weapon taking on normal weapon qualities, you quoted: “Magic weapons always ignore any rules that apply to an ordinary weapon of the same type unless otherwise specified in the description of the weapon" Saying "Lance." or "Spear." at the beginning of the effect description is the "Otherwise specified in the description of the weapon" Regardless that a high elf item says "This weapon follows the rules for a lance..." only saying the one word "Lance." means the same thing. Now don't get me wrong, I'm starting to see how GW could be insane enough with the wording to make the Horned One an insurance policy against getting your mount sniped out from under you (though I logically would not play it out, or consider it in an actual game). But saying "Lance." followed by an effect does make it follow the rules for a normal lance as well. I'm sorry that I'm not able to quote page numbers and such, seeing as I don't have my book at hand, but that is simply just a rule that I happen to know as a fact is true. And everyone else here will agree, and everyone I have called that I know who play warhammer agree with me, some people who have been playing warhammer for 10 or more years, all agree. GW is just terrible with its wording (and spelling) which is why so many FAQ and Errata come out after every book they release. An item can say "Counts as a Spear..., Has the same rules as a Spear..., Spear." and they all mean the same thing. Interestingly enough your probably the first to come up with this horned one theory with two "mounts" which is why it hasn't been FAQ'd yet. I feel like some of the others though when they say your clutching at straws in the wording. I'd probably be tempted to agree with you that you can take both after i read the actual wording to some of those pages a while ago, though I wouldn't feel comfortable excercising it in a game. And Thanks for apologizing, and makin sure we all understood you weren't just a stubborn person who wanted to exploit the wording of the rules. While your understanding of the rules seems to be pretty good when relating to the horned one, you are definately wrong in the magic weapon and weapon effect rules. The whole dwarf rules and normal magic weapon rules are a bit complicated. With dwarfs they don't take magic weapons, but take mundane weapons and put runes on them, making them magical weapons. This is why they state that they lose their normal rules when you put on a rune. This only applies to dwarven magic weapon selection, because its very different then picking out pre-made magic weapons. Their wording is so because they simply pick, great weapon...then put on runes...A normal person would assume its still a great weapon and give the magic weapon the +2 STR and Strike Last rules ontop of the 1-3 runes or w/e. This is why their magic weapons don't have the original bonuses without the master rune of kragg grim. With lizardmen magic items, for example the stegadon war-spear. The stating of "Lance." does mean it has the properties of a mundane lance, ontop of the magical effects. I've said this like 3 times now, and I'm not sure how else to put it, so I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Its not your fault, but my own inability to express it differently so you'll understand. All I can really say is, trust the forum, trust the people... "Lance." makes it have the powers of a mundane lance and the extra effects. I promise...
Good point, that first thing. However there is already precedent for a model carrying two of the same type of item yet only having to be modeled with one. This is actually quite legal, and this precedent (mundane and magical weapons) actually follow quite a few parallels to this discussion. To SlannofIzta; beautiful post! Thank you for adressing some of the points no one really has yet or elaborating succently. Please do not find it unkind if I question some of the things about the post, indeed I respect it all the more and only wish to take this line of conversation and logic as far as it will go not to be annoying but to learn and create an interesting discussion. I know you don’t have a rulebook in front of you but I have searched that thing forwards and backwards time and time again and there are no rules or limitations in regards to mounts. I guess GW never thought that a situation like this would come up and really, thats understandable. Two mounts? Thats pretty...dim. However, so is charging 15 points more for an item that is only very barely better in a catagory of points that really are worth more than normal given how limited they are. Leads me to think the intention was to create this situation, and really, has anyone come up with any other logical explanation for why it was listed as a magical item and not as a special “one per army” mount choice? Not that my explanation is all that sound either but least it has practical (albeit slim) merit. I know you’ve repeated yourself three different times in regards to how a weapon is classified in it’s description and I’m sorry to perturb you on this point. Considering it’s really a moot point, at best was weakly used to illustrate a point in the OP, and is getting more attention than the original questions I’ll concede the issue on weapons and descriptions. Again, I do apologize if this branch of the conversation cuased anyone too much grief. However, even though the Horned One has all the abilites and traits of a cold one, it is still only an enchanted item and not a mount in the most literal sense and most certiantly doesn’t appear on any list that would limit you from taking both a mundane mount and a magical one so unfortunatly the original issue still stands; Do you think you can take an ordinary mount and a horned one based on any rules from the BRB, army book or any type of flatulance excreted from a GW employee that might sound anything like a rule on mounts? Really, almost any type of official clarification or precedent would be helpful.
Thanks, and your kinda right that the weapons rules weren't really the point of the topic anyway, so sorry for trailing off. I guess the weapon rule kinda applies the same way that "Cold One." applies to the horned one. Though if your playing word for word to the letter, and cannot find anything stating you can't have two mounts. Well, I'm not going to get home, whip the rules out and search it cover to cover looking, but the arguement is there that you could effectively have two mounts. I'm dumbfounded at the very idea, but why else would GW make the item, since its so obvious its not worthwhile to take unless you can also have a normal mount, right? Like I said though, I wouldn't play it out for personal reasons. (Not to mention the people at my gaming club would laugh and say "I don't care what the wording is, you can't have two mounts...") I'm glad the conversation ended up becoming the calm and happy back and forth its meant to be. But I think I pretty much covered my opinion in the last post and this one. I think I'll let some other people throw out their ideas. Glad we could agree to disagree SOULDUST, and all I have left to say is... Good Luck.
Sorry, Im not really able to add much rules-wise to this post besides a gut feeling that the "intention" (and yes, I did use that word in regards to GW) is for it to fill your "mount" slot, and this is simply a matter or GW cutting corners for a deadline. However, I see potential for a Horned one to be modeled onto a Carnosaur's base or chained alongside a Steg... could you imagine the funny side though? the Steg dies, the skink slides down its tail Fred Flintstone style, jumps on the Horned one and takes off (hehe, 3D6 flee range, didn't see that one coming did you!?!) The only other point Id like to raise is that, aside from Brettonians, I believe that, in regards to weapons you must use your magical one, even if you have bought a Great weapon, etc. I believe its mentioned in the BRB in the magic items section. Please correct me if Im wrong. I know that doesn't help with if its possible or not, but just food for thought.
Yeah GW is a complete pain when it comes to wording and half-assing some of its stuff, so If no one can really find anything that says you can't have two mounts beyond "Choose one..." when your looking at point costs in an army, its semi-plausible. Though because it says "Cold One." it is like taking a magical mount, then you can select a normal mount, but as Dreadgrass mentioned, and I believe he is correct, you have to use the magical weapon/armor etc. Basically you'd be doing the opposite of that nice "fred flintstone" image, riding on the horned one, and IF it dies or is destroyed, BOOM! you pull a stegadon or carnosaur out of your back pocket and jump onto it. Lol. Obviously not the optimal strategy...