Ulthuan

Simple question, as the title says. Is barding armour? Everything I can see suggests that it is. Under cavalry (as a troop type), p83, it refers to barding being armour (of the horse).

This left me wondering, since for a cavalry model horse and rider are a single model, then armour for the horse = armour for the rider. But just now I noticed HE mages can take barding as an option for their mounts. And since (BRB p500) if a wizard has an option for armour then he's allowed magical armour, does that allow HE mages to take magical armour?

I can't really see why not. You could argue that it's the horse not the mage that takes the armour. But in the end it does simply add up to the mages armour save. And they are "treated in all respects as a single model" and "it is the riders armour save that is used". So while fluff suggests the armour bits are on the horse, rule wise they belong to the rider. And, there is precedent (of sorts) in the Ogre kingdoms butchers accidentally being able to take iron fists (or whatever they're called).

Then of course, the question becomes why hasn't anyone noticed this earlier?

Rod

_________________
For Nagarythe: Come to the dark side.
PS: Bring cookies!

Check out my plog
Painting progress, done/in progress/in box: 167/33/91

Check my writing blog for stories on the Prince of Spires and other pieces of fiction.

I could and I would While I understand where you're coming from, I don't think that's not how this rule was intended to work.

_________________
cheers, Lee

Elven Field Surgeon, Department of Intensive Care, Resuscitation and Necromancy

I can't answer for 8th edition, but in 6th the barding of the horse did not prevent the wizard from casting spells, which was the effect of armour on wizards. However the rules never prevented mages from taking magical armor items, it simply mentions that if they did they would be unable to cast any spells at all, unless specified otherwise in the magical item (for example the Radiant Gem of Hoeth allows the wearer to cast spells even if he wears armor).

The reason why I think your reasoning is not true in 8th is that essentially you make the point of having an armour save = having an armour option.
If that is the case, wouldn't simply being mounted allow to take armour items? Since being mounted gives you a 6+ armour save.
I am not sure if in 8th armour prevents mages from casting spells, in 6th this was the main thing preventing mages from taking up armour items (and I think in 7th too).

_________________
' "In fact, men, the general has this to say about ensuring against defeat when outnumbered, out–weaponed and outpositioned. It is..." he turned the page, "Don't Have a Battle."
"Sounds like a clever man," said Jenkins. '
Terry Pratchett, Jingo!

This is the key I guess. I think it can be argued both ways.


Despite Jervis Johnson's intent, the RAW case is just too strong here.


Yeah, the RAI is pretty clear because any number of wizards can ride barded creatures. But the RAW is a little ambiguous.


There is no specific rule, this is handled in army selection.

The bottom line for me personally is that I wouldn't be able to write this into a tournament list.

_________________
A New Blog (Orcs and Goblins)
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=70550
Cavalry Prince Reloaded
viewtopic.php?f=80&t=70001