Fireborn and "Model" clarification

[datalink7]

Hi all,

Sorry to register just to post this. But I saw in this thread:

http://www.ulthuan.net/forum/posting.ph ... 1&p=812907

That is generally agreed on this forum that the Fireborn Special rule affects both the mount and rider if one of them have the rule.

This is the quote I saw:

thanks . good stuff

check this out

It does. We've been discussing that the Fireborn Special rule (which is what the armor confers) affects the model, not just the wearer.

So the dragon has that same rule. Even a chariot if your noble/prince is mounted on one. Hell, the flamespyre phoenix grants the ward save to the anointed, too.

I couldn't find where you all where discussing this, so I created a new thread topic.

The general consensus from non High Elf players is the opposite.

Model doesn't refer the model as in the hobby model (as in, the one that you paint). It refers to a specific profile.

Perhaps the best iteration of this is the weapons section of the BRB. On page 89, there are a bunch of examples. One I'll quote is under the "Strength" section.

A weapon's Strength can take three forms. If the Strength is shown as a modifier, for example +1, +2 or -1, then this is the modifier the weapon applies to the wielding model's strength

(emphasis mine)

If you take a great weapon, your mount doesn't also get +2 strength, despite it giving the "model" +2 strength. Why something different for Fireborn?

[Asurion Whitestar]

A great weapon's Strength mod applies to the Wielding Model's Strength, not the Model's strength.

The Fireborne Special Rule affects the model, not the wearing model.

[datalink7]

A great weapon's Strength mod applies to the Wielding Model's Strength, not the Model's strength.

The Fireborne Special Rule affects the model, not the wearing model.

Could you point out a reference that shows that "model" can mean more than one profile? In the BRB, from the instances I can see, "model" always references one profile, whether this be the wielding, wearing, or whatever profile.

Unless there is a reference that shows "model" can reference more than that, I think that applying the word "model" to a whole "figure" is conflating the hobby term "model" with the game term "model". This is also the consensus of others I have talked to.

Not trying to be combative in a negative way. Would be nice to get a definitive definition (which is typically difficult with the way Games Workshop utilizes the English language).

[Prince of Spires]

We've had a fair bit of discussion about this in the past here already, and the problem is that there is no clear answer. GW uses the term "model" very loosly and inconsistently. Sometimes it means the user/wearer of an item, sometimes everything on a single base.

As for your weapon quote, it was ruled in an faq that you only benefit from most bonuses if you are actually wielding the weapon and swinging with it. So no S bonus for mounts.

As for a direct quote from the BRB that states that dragon + rider is a single model:
BRB p104, top right of the page: A character and his mount are treated as a single character model for all rules purposes, except as noted below.

Doesn't get much clearer then this I would say.

Of course, this doesn't automatically mean that both benefit from the 2+, since you can still argue it both ways and thus needs an FAQ. But they are a single model for rules purposes, and if the model is granted the special rule then you can say that both benefit from that.

Rod

[Stormie]

It's definitely not a consensus that High Elf players think it affects the whole model. Although the rulebook does say to treat a ridden monster as a single model, it does then go on to say "We assume that special rules that apply to a ridden monster do not apply to the character riding it and vice versa", plus the FAQ, answers NO to "Does a ridden monster benefit from any ward save that its rider possesses or vice versa?".

There's a plethora of other magic items that refer to "the model", like the Dark Elf Potion of Strength, Armour of Living Death and Ring of Darkness. Although Str 9 Dragons quaffing some special brew and encased in deathly armour granting +1 T and +1 W sounds pretty funky!

I do think GW need to be more specific than simply saying "model" though, as it is just asking for it to be interpreted as meaning "all parts of a model". Hopefully it will be FAQed (or confirmed to affect all parts, if need be).

[Minsc]

We already have a topic about this:

http://www.ulthuan.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=45250

Keypost is this:

The only part in BRB which I think might give some hints is about special rules for rider and monster.
It says specialrules of monster doesn't confer to rider and vice versa.
If the effects provided by magic items are considered to be special rules, Cloak of Hag Graef might not be affecting ridden monster.
But are there any clear statement supporting it?

Fireborn is a special rule, so no 2+ ward for the mount.

[Enomiel]

French version is clear about this as the dragon's armor say that the "bearer gets the fire born special rule" and as special rule doesn't transmit from rider to mount, it shouldn't get the ward.

The old rules for dragon armor specifically said that the protection from fire carried to the mount so if they'd wanted it the same way they'd have worded it as before.

[John Rainbow]

I'd go with this as being unclear. It can be argued each way and is in dire need of an FAQ. We have had this exact same arguement many a time over here in relation to the Prince/Stardragon build and all sorts of things i.e. equipment, templates, characteristic checks. It had never been resolved to anyone's satisfaction and it's something I usually ask the tournament TO about (at an event and then we use that ruling at our club). As I said, it really needs an FAQ.

FYI, all the TO's I have ever asked have ruled it as not conferring to the ridden monster. The same goes for things like template spells (hit both) and characteristic tests where both must take the test at their own value (this is the one that really sucks for a Stardragon - Pit of Shades!!!!).

[Prince of Spires]

French version is clear about this as the dragon's armor say that the "bearer gets the fire born special rule" and as special rule doesn't transmit from rider to mount, it shouldn't get the ward.

Only problem is that translated versions tend to be very inaccurate in these sort of cases. Things get lost in translation. The key word being "model" changing into "bearer" which either makes all the difference (if you think it transfers) or nothing at all.

Clear example of this is the deamon wind of magic results affecting all enemy units or not. IIRC, the spanish version said that it didn't and the italian one that it did. So which one is right? Translators just get a copy of the text and slap on their own interpretation. They don't get to ask the writer what he meant in a certain situation. Unfortunatly.

The only part in BRB which I think might give some hints is about special rules for rider and monster.
It says specialrules of monster doesn't confer to rider and vice versa.
If the effects provided by magic items are considered to be special rules, Cloak of Hag Graef might not be affecting ridden monster.
But are there any clear statement supporting it?

Fireborn is a special rule, so no 2+ ward for the mount.

But the Fireborn special rule gives the ward to the model and not the bearer. And model is (according to the BRB) the combination of rider and mount.

While likely that it only affects the bearer (I'll probably play it that way), it is by no means certain. And stranger things have happened in FAQs. And with dragon armour getting more expensive, losing a (pretty important) ability is by no means a given.

Rod

[Enomiel]

French version is clear about this as the dragon's armor say that the "bearer gets the fire born special rule" and as special rule doesn't transmit from rider to mount, it shouldn't get the ward.

Only problem is that translated versions tend to be very inaccurate in these sort of cases. Things get lost in translation. The key word being "model" changing into "bearer" which either makes all the difference (if you think it transfers) or nothing at all.

Clear example of this is the deamon wind of magic results affecting all enemy units or not. IIRC, the spanish version said that it didn't and the italian one that it did. So which one is right? Translators just get a copy of the text and slap on their own interpretation. They don't get to ask the writer what he meant in a certain situation. Unfortunatly.

The only part in BRB which I think might give some hints is about special rules for rider and monster.
It says specialrules of monster doesn't confer to rider and vice versa.
If the effects provided by magic items are considered to be special rules, Cloak of Hag Graef might not be affecting ridden monster.
But are there any clear statement supporting it?

Fireborn is a special rule, so no 2+ ward for the mount.

But the Fireborn special rule gives the ward to the model and not the bearer. And model is (according to the BRB) the combination of rider and mount.

While likely that it only affects the bearer (I'll probably play it that way), it is by no means certain. And stranger things have happened in FAQs. And with dragon armour getting more expensive, losing a (pretty important) ability is by no means a given.

Rod

I see so the problem comes from the fireborn wording and not the armor one. Funny thing is in the French book the fire born rule says:"confère une sauvegarde invulnérable de 2+ contre les attaques enflammées" or in english "gives a 2+ ward save against flaming attacks" and that's all! It doesn't specify either model nor bearer nor anything about who or what it gives the ward to... talk about inaccurate indeed.

[aurynn]

Just found an interesting note
BRB, page 105, Shooting at Ridden Monsters states in its first sentence the following: "As a single model, the monster and its rider are considered to be a single target."

Clearly Monster and Rider are a single model then...
IF the armour bestows Fireborn Special Rule, that applies to the model, there is no transferrence of Special Rule upon the mount. The mount acquires it as a part of that rule and not by extension of the wearer's special rule.

We need the FAQ though. Although I believe my logic to be valid, it is too hazy.

[Stormie]

They're definitely a single model when it comes to shooting, but when it comes to the Fireborn rule, or wearing their master's armour, that's another matter.

For reference, GW are ruling things that seem to affect entire models only affect that constituent part, e.g. Chaos Knights with Mark of Khorne.

[aurynn]

I believe that the wording of the sentence implies that they are considered single model in general - ergo a single target for shooting. CC attacks can be directed as they are much more precise. If I should extend this logic, for the purpose of shooting they are a single model, for CC they are not... Apparently making the Fireborn rule apply differently for shooting and CC is not realistic from the common sense POV so the general rule should apply - ergo they are a single model.

In addition the cases of treating the rider and the monster as a single model are more numerous than separation of those so in general the "single model" rule should prevail for general use.

Also the Fireborn extends without question or doubt to Monstrous Cavalry mounts even when you are using its Toughness to govern wound rolls - ergo you are hitting the mount, not the rider and it still gets the Fireborn rule.

[Stormie]

Nah, you are definitely still hitting the rider (you use his WS after all), let's not muddy the waters with discussion of models that are truly combined (cavalry, monstrous cavalry etc.)

[aurynn]

With shooting you do not roll against his WS...

Hehe. I know that I am getting maybe too deep into the argumentation, but I believe that the FAQ will rule towards protecting mounts. Just for the sake of keeping the Dragon lists playable and make Dragon mage actually quite good.

[Stormie]

Haha, good reply! I don't think GW will allow it, but I would actually prefer they did...

[Spartacus]

What I think is telling about this, is that on the same page, it specifies that the Dragon Armor's armor save and ward save apply to the wearer. Why would they then change the language to model when talking about the Fireborn rule?

[aurynn]

They have ruled stranger things, made many exceptions, so I do not think that would be a problem. If they intended the ward to apply to mount it will. I really hope it will. I have a very broken dragon that I am going to rebuild and I would like to field him too. Without the ward it would not be that good for the points...

[pk-ng]

What I think is telling about this, is that on the same page, it specifies that the Dragon Armor's armor save and ward save apply to the wearer. Why would they then change the language to model when talking about the Fireborn rule?

Because GW's rules aren't always consistent. They like to contradict themselves....re: "unmodified leadership"