fatbat, check out the 'Mounted Warriors' rules on page 119 of the Mordheim rulebook - the Blazing Saddles Article is an extra addition to these core rules. In the Mordheim book it states that a mount is killed and removed from the roster on a roll of 1-2 in the post game if the 'model' is taken OOA (i.e. if its rider is taken OOA)

I would say that something like Lure of Chaos against the mount is, whilst a sneaky plan that I applaud you for, directly against the stated rules that the riders LD is used for all tests. Similarly the mount counts as equipment, so is not a warband 'member' like a hound, and you cannot get +1xp for killing it.

There isn't a system for nominating attacks towards a mount instead of a rider, but I can see why there's an argument for one in a skirmish game like this.

I'd be inclined to say that for shooting, at long range it is randomised between mount and rider and at a weapon's short range it is choosable.

In combat I think you'd be more worried about the person trying to murder you than the horse, but if the rider is stunned or 'knocked down' then perhaps you could attempt to take the horse OOA instead of attempt to take the rider out.

We'll use the current ruleset for this game, but I'd be interested to hear people's opinions on this as I originally thought there were rules for targeting mounts myself and was a little surprised to not find any.

When the first chapel guards warband was in the campaign (5 mounted knights), I did some extensive research on the mounted rules. So I'll impart my findings for all.

There's an additional section on mounted rules in Empire in Flames, starting on page 24, called Mounted Warriors. There's a slew of rules related to mounts, most of which is better read then summarized by me here. Between the 2 books, here's what you need to know for the bulk of circumstances:

1) The rider and mount count as one model. (MR
2) The rider's leadership is used for the model. (MR
3) Once the wounds of the rider are reduced to 0, instead of rolling a injury roll, you roll a Woah Boy! roll. The results of on the Woah Boy! table are much more brutal than a traditional Injury roll. (EiF)
4) Depending on the Woah Boy result, the horse can be killed outright or even run away.


Again, this is a very basic summary and I'd advise reading through all of the applicable rules.

Cheers!

Perfectly happy with these - looks like you have to reduce the rider to zero then do the 'woah boy'

Re Duncoman's note on bespelling a mount - as it is treated as a single model it is the rider who saves.

I suspect if the rider and mount are KO then the mount tries to preserve its own hide and hopefully kicks the rider to death

there is also a note about hitting (not wounding) a rider who has no ride skill - they get the 'woah boy' roll too

One of the reasons this came up was the Orc Boars - I thought the shaman does not have the ride skill and could be taken out quickly.. just by hitting him (no mention of wounds) while I wondered if the Warboss could be sneakily unhorsed - but you have answered that!

Thanks Guys!

D'oh thanks for remembering the rules from EiF klinktastic, I'd forgotten about them...

As far as the 'ride (insert mount here)' skill goes, I discussed with Ash a while back whether or not it's worth simply removing it as a necessary thing for people to ride - having to take a skill (a random chance when you get an advance, of which there are only so many in a model's lifespan in Mordheim), plus the 80gc+ that it costs to hire a mount in the first place does make it a little prohibitive and down to chance more than a simple high-cost, #only for the best' type option.

I for one would love to take a warhorse to get Pieter off of his gammy leg and give him a bit more survivabiliy and combat power into the bargain, but with my dice rolling I doubt the fates will line up and allow me to roll a skill when I have the cash to spend on a horse.

I think the only person so far to buy a mount for their warband is klinktastic, and I see he's got the 'ride warboar' skill on his warboss, so I can only presume the fates lined up for you to take it as a skill?

How is everyone's game progressing? It seems like these multiplayer games are harder to coordinate.

ride - it looks like anyone can ride - but if you get hit (not needed to wound) then you have to 'Woah boy' if you do not have the ride skill.

For a plus to charge and plus to move along with an extra attack, 80gc seems a steep yet reasonable cost. but to have a ride skill requirement on top is - I believe - too much.

I may suggest you do not need the ride skill as you are already paying out a lot for the privilege.

so treat any rider as having the ride skill? makes life easier - not necessarily cheaper!

maybe henchmen should be treated as not being trained in riding.. would you give them an 80g horse/pig/spider though? (spider/pig?)

can you hide behind a wood?
I know that you cannot be seen behind a wood but can you declare you are hiding at a 'corner' just like hiding behind the corner of a house?

fatbat wrote:
can you hide behind a wood?
I know that you cannot be seen behind a wood but can you declare you are hiding at a 'corner' just like hiding behind the corner of a house?

Basically, if you within the woods and less than 2" you cannot hide per the hide rules. The only think you can do is be greater than 2" and out of LOS. Or if you are not in the woods, you can use it to block LOS. Otherwise, you cannot use it hide, only to block LOS.

Here's the applicable rules from EiF:

"A stand of woods blocks line of sight to the other side, no matter how wide the stand is. This means that two models on either side of even a 1" wide section of woods cannot see each other if neither has actually entered it. A model within a stand of woods can see or be seen for 2". This means that there must be no more than 2" between a warrior in woods and an enemy model for the warrior to freely charge or shoot at the enemy, and the same goes for enemy models who wish to shoot at or charge a warrior in woods. Models with more than 2" of woods between them may still test to see if they can charge unseen enemy models as per the normal Mordheim rules, of course."

+1 on the ride skill house ruling. advancements are a precious few, and having the skill is already tough considering the cost and low survivability of mounts compared to their cost.

I'd say you can hide in a wood no matter how far in, from MRB;

"A model can hide if he ends his move behind a low

wall, a column or in a similar position where he could

reasonably conceal himself."

I would say that you can reasonably conceal yourself in a wood if you don't want to be seen. In fact, rather abstract to the point, I have done it in real life myself, having served in the army for 6 years.


What klinktastic has mentioned about the ride skill and the new exploration table is correct. In fact I am going to post the table as it is now ready for the game 7 post game Including the introduction of Vengeance Enjoy.

If anyone gets a result that is TBD please let me know and I will endeavour to get that result published.

Ashjwest wrote:
I'd say you can hide in a wood no matter how far in, from MRB;

"A model can hide if he ends his move behind a low

wall, a column or in a similar position where he could

reasonably conceal himself."



I know what you're saying here, but the EiF explicitly says, "A model within a stand of woods can see or be seen for 2". There's not enough consistent terrain to hide an entire model to qualify for the hiding rule. this is just like Duncan's prior ruling that individual trees cannot be used for cover for hiding purposes. I would strongly disagree with going against this particular rule since these patches of woods are pretty common in our outdoor maps and that's just opening a huge can of worms with people campaign and hiding in these woods. Just use the rules per EiF, they work 100% fine IMO and I would resist any changes strongly. The current rules give you the ability to hide, one you move back 2" into the woods and LOS is blocked. Just like in the read world, if you're standing on the edge of the woods, you're not going to be able to hide much. Once you move back (more the 2" there is enough coverage to avoid detection.

Good news on finally officially publishing the custom exploration list Ash! Looking forward to maybe getting some cool stuff!

I have to agree with Klink on this one. If amended the rules to allow for hiding in the 2" zone of woods, we would be adding a huge (f'ing huge) advantage to shooty warbands. As evidenced by the SW, I don't think we need to change rules to give shooty warbands an even larger incentive to camp in woods. I'd vote to keep the RAW interpretation outlined in EiF.

If I was playing with you guys IRL, hiding in the wood no matter the distance from the edge would be okay. However, I think with the way we're playing on BC, it makes it easier to use the EiF rules RAW.

Only cowards hide anyway.

Woods-
If you are beyond 2" into a wood you cannot be sees nor see out - you are not hiding - in effect woods are good only to be out of sight in and to slow people down

wheras being actively hidden allows you to peer over/around and to be able to charge but not be shot at. walls and house corners are great for this

I was thinking of lurking behind a wood and waiting until the enemy comes around into view.. and charge. there will be a fine line (gentlemanly agreement?) where you can see from and how far because woods have rounded edges. I would suggest you inform the opponent that you are out of sight just like you would when you hide.

You can then discuss at what point you can be seen.

Regarding getting cover from a wood - If there is a setup where the wood has a wall around it you can hide behind the wall.

I believe the reason for not getting cover from the wood is that you would remain 2" inside the wood and gain cover but the opposition would have to cover an extra 4" charge range to get to the pesky bowmen.

similarly we seem to be employing the 'occupied house' rule so if you want to get cover from shooting out of windows you have to brave the occupants - who cant be killed and continue to hassle you until you tell them in no uncertain manner to get thee hence. I think this is good because it puts a cost on camping in a good defensive position.

all in all It will be difficult to hide at the edge of a wood unless the opposition does not move in their turn

cheers!

I'm 100% certain I understand what you are trying to explain Fatbat, but here's what you need to know regarding Woods and Cover. Cover is a completely separate set of rules than the Woods terrain rules. To qualify for Cover, the model being shot at would need to have part of it blocked 1%-99% by some obstacle (i.e. terrain or another model). Therefore, if you are in the woods, you get cover because it's assumed you have something providing at least a bit of cover. While the rules for Woods in EiF don't explicitly state you qualify for cover, they aren't written for BC. So since we cannot truly tell if the model is being afforded cover, it's generally accepted that the model is somehow getting at least 1% of cover if their in the woods.

The beastmen amd orcs vs chapel guards and pirates game as concluded. The two sides faced off over a chaos shrine hidden deep in the forest. The combined toughness of the evil faction was able to absorb their ranged disadvantage to close the gap with minimal casualties and the ensuing charges overwhelmed the human lines, turning a fairly balanced game into a complete route.