All good points. Starting with intention...god help us but coming from Dark Elves into Lizardmen it became quite clear that the intentions of GW are as clear as a drunkards piss and usually about as accurate in it's aim. I would say common sense would dictate you can't have two mounts but apperently it doesn't mean it's not possible. Also, I don't much mind the idea, as mages take 25 point dispel scrolls as insurance for their tasks so it wouldn't be too far fetched for a lord choice to take 35 points to remain protected and mobile in his task. Also, not only is the Fred Flinstone idea funny, but just imagine lashing it to the stegadon. Paint a confused expression on the poor things face as it's tied to the flank of the steggy like a spare tire, lol. In all seriousness though, in this situation I do believe you would not have to represent the cold one just like you don't have to represent rings, boots, some of the other enchanted items that have come and gone. As for the parallel to the mundane/magic weapons point, your absolutly right in that you would have to take the magical weapon when given a choice. However given a choice between two non-magical weapons still offeres you a choice (and the ability to model it either way) of which to take and really the only reason you can't choose between a mundane weapon and a magic weapon is becuase there are rules that stipulate otherwise in the BRB which is woefully void of any rules for mounts. I do think that there are too many precedents that can be inferred, now I just wish for a clearer wording or a FAQ on it but that'll probably never happen.
2 posts in the time it too me to type mine: The rules are strangely silent on the subject of multiple mounts, this is something that I am sure of. I've also searched the rules thoroughly to try and find anything in regards to mounts and I have to say that this is the first time I've ever seen GW use an EI for a mount type item. It really is quite a strange circumstance and I can confidently say that the rules were not written with this EI in mind (no surprise there). Not to continue to drag the topic off subject but I will also offer my opinion on the magical weapon wordings. Soul, you are absolutely correct in your reference of the magic item rules in the BRB. Once an item becomes magical, it looses all the properties of its original mundane status. However, as both of you mentioned, there are several instances in which the item shares its properties with its mundane version. SoI's point, wether or not it was made too many times, illustrates a true consistancy which Soul agrees with as well. I believe that it has to do with different authors for each army book and ultimately leads to inconsistencies in the wording. Instead of seeing a single phrase whos meaning is understandable and easily interpretable, we get multiple similar phrases ("Lance:" "Counts as lance" etc). I believe that the intent for these different phrases is the same, considering that we see multiple instances of this across many army books, not just in the magic item area. If you use the similarities of wording in magic weapons, the intent seems to be that since a horned one counts as a "Cold One" according to the army book, you wouldn't be able to give your character a Cold one and horned one, but would be able to take a carnosaur/horned one combo. This is because the Horned One rules specifically say that it is a Cold One (just without the stupidity and such). A carnosaur obviously is not a Cold One. I found an interesting passage that I'll quote from the BRB now: EI's are their own category and aren't subject to other restrictions according to this, except that you can't have more than one. I feel this adds a bit of strength to the multiple mount theory. In conclusion, I'd say that its much easier not to try and take advantage of this particular tactic in army lists. However, there definitely is room for interpretation and discussion. I won't deny that I haven't been totally convinced that this is a legal move, but the idea definitely seems to have some merit, depending on your interpretation.
Thats the next point I was going to make and you are absolutely correct. IF you are going to follow the ruling that oyu can have a magical and a mundane version of something, then you must follow the ruling in the BRB that says the magical version has to be used (which is exactly why I said the carnosaur was in the pocket in my first reply despite the OP wanting to use the carnosaur first) you cannot choose to use a mundane weapon if you have a magic weapon unless you are a Bretonnian and have a mundane lance and a magic sword or such. Therefore even if you did mamange to pull it, the horned one comes out first and since it is a single wound mount it cannot be killed to reveal the mundane mount. There is the possibility of a couple of item destroying items, and the HE spell Vaul's Unmaking, but if an opponent sees a 2-300 point gap in your army.... Well, I know I would prefer to face the horned one than the carnosaur. Secondly, Vaul's Unmaking only turns a magic item into its mundane version, thus even against Vaul's the cold one would still be there. Next, when selecting your characters does it not say in the army list section that you can only have 1 mount? Pick one from the following or some such? That is where I would get the rule from. By your logic, what is to stop you taking 2 or more shields? I'm sure the rule is in the BRB somewhere, though as you say you have pawed through it heavily. Thirdly, I will add weight to the fact that saying 'cold one' at the start makes it completely follow the rules for the cold one. Otherwise exactly what rules are you going to use for it? I once again find myself wishing I had my books at uni (I would never get any work done then) but I'm pretty sure after cold one, it pretty much just says 'except M8 and no stupidity' or some such. More than clearly this 'cold one' statement makes the item count as a cold one in all respects except what follows after. The same with any magic items that start with a mundane version word. Think about magic shields, they start with 'shield' don't they? Are you going to claim they in fact are not shields because they do not explicitely say 'count as a shield'? Exactly the same case for the warspear. It says lance, it follows all the rules for a lance with the following exceptions. This is not where GW tell you how to model the item, that happens in the item's name and fluffy description, THAT is where you get told what it should look like. The bit under italics? Thats all rules. If it says what type of item/weapon it is, well that is what it counts as with whatever else the description says. Dwarf runes do not follow rules in the BRB so need their own description, also remember different people write the different books so naturally use slightly different language to each other to tell the same rules. Classic example; stegadon character displaces a skink, there because 4 skinks instead of 5, Dark Elf assassin displaces a model, the model stays in the fight. Same word, different meaning, because two different people wrote the books. ..... Nextly? Skinks cannot take cold ones. Correct. The BRB will say that magic items and in fact army books overrule things in the BRB. The order of rules goes BRB < army book < specific descriptions. The horned one has clearly given an exception to the normal rules by giving a line that says skinks may take one. Can they take a normal cold one? No. By the same line, there are some items in different armies (I believe VC have one) that have similar exceptions; a magic armour not normally allowed by wizards specifically says may be worn by wizards, all of a sudden even though the mundane version isn't available, the magic version is. Yeah its pretty much academic IMO. Interesting to get a discussion going. And although the 'dispute' has calmed down on its own (wow you guys make my job nice and easy ) I will comment on it. Souldust, I know I for one (and I'm sure I speak for the others) was not laughing at or ridiculing you, I was laughing at the idea of a mount being hidden in a pocket. Lots of people on this forum have great senses of humour, there are quite a few threads that end up with some crazy jokes about the topic in them, its all part of the community. It wasn't directed at you, it was directed at the topic. Unless something really interesting pops up that I cannot resist, I think I am going to leave this thread alone now. Beyond all the 'rules as intended' and other examples I and everyone else has given, I challenge you to try to find an opponent who will let you carry a carnosaur in your pocket. By the same token, well find somewhere in any of the rulebooks that says my saurus can't fly? Until you find something that says they can't...... Well, sometimes the rule is very obvious despite it not being clearly written.
This point was already made and countered by the fact that being forced to choose the magical version is a constraint only placed on magical weapons by specific rules of which for mounts there are none so thats a moot point. Quite correct, however Law of Gold would outright destroy the enchanted item. The FAQ ‘suggests’ not playing it that way due to having to have a seperate model on hand, but thats the way it would work becuase Horned One is an enchanted item and not a mount, just operates as if it were one. It's irrellevant now and would just rather continue the discussion however since you brought it up I will comment in it as well and say that you can hide behind laughing at the topic but it's I whom started the topic and not as a joke. I don't blame anyone for their intentions, just their actions. Most commonly it will say “One Choice Only” which has already been made as a point and countered that: 1. Horned One is not on that list. 2. It says the same things for hand weapons yet you can take a magical version of the same type; taking a mundane great weapon and then taking a magical great weapon for instance and 3. Cold One isn’t even listed as an option available for skinks yet they can take the Horned One which means that the “One Choice Only” wasn’t even considered in the items design and is a moot point to the argument. Asked and answered. I conceded the point on a weapon or other item listing it’s type under it’s description. However, accepting the fact that the Horned One operates as a cold one in no way changes the argument at this point, for better or ill. Page 68 of the BRB: “If a model is capable of flight it will have the special rule ‘Fly’ in it’s entry in the relavant army book.”