Ring of Darkness

[Loki]

This is probably a really simple answer, but the difference between character and model always confuses me. Does this ring require the attackers to halve their Weapon Skill against the mount as well? Say if my Lord is on a dragon, do enemies hit the dragon at one half weapon skill as well?

[Silverheimdall]

Hm, could be debated either way as its quite unclear, might wanna add it to the FAQ questions.

Usually when it includes "model" in the description - its the entire model on one base, so affects mounts, but some items also specify the mount being included.

Inconsistancies ftw.

[Loki]

What lead me to think it includes the mount is that it uses "character's unit" when talking about shooting but uses "model" when talking about close combat. I'm just going to assume that it means the whole model and therefore lots of things only hit my dragon on 5s.

[Dggrj]

Well, they can choose to attack either the monster or the rider, but as per the monster mount rules they count as one model, so I support the argument that it affects the mount in CC as well. Otherwise it's some darn-localized darkness

[Gastronauticon]

No need for a FAQ, or another thread on this issue for that matter.

The wording in the AB is crystal clear. The model-and-character issue is abundantly covered in the BRB, page 58 or 59 and also in the chariot section following a few pages thereafter.

[Deadlydeceiver]

In my book, the Ring of Darkness states, that the WS-halfing affects the "bearer", not the "model", while the BS-halfing affects the "bearer and his unit". Crystal clear too, but exactly the opposite.

Maybe this is just another translation-error in the worst version (German)...
Does the English version definitely state "model"? If yes I'll contact GW-Germany (another time! but it helped... I think).

[Lethalis]

It says 'model' in the English version.

[Deadlydeceiver]

Noooo, not another one!!!
I hate the German book. So I'll write them a mail. The last time I wrote them about the RoH and the next day it was erratad. maybe just a coincidence, but maybe not...

Thanks anyway.

cheers deadly

[Yuna]

It is the same in the French book: bearer and not the "whole" model...


I'm looking forward to read the English errata....

[Minsc]

Usually when it includes "model" in the description - its the entire model on one base, so affects mounts, but some items also specify the mount being included.

If Ring of Darkness would affect the mount as well, that means;

- That our Black Dragons can become T7, W7 due to the Armour of Living Death.

- That our Black Dragons can get a 1+ Save vs Shooting, and a 2+ save in cllose combat.

- Our Dark Pegasus/Manticore's can become T6 for a round,due to the Black Dragon Egg.

- Our mounts would get +3 Strenght from Potion of Strenght.

Why? Because in the descitpion for AoLD, SDC, BDE and PoS - it refers to "the modell".
Now tell me this isn't rawabuse of the most disgusting level?

So no, Ring of Darkness does imo not give any benefit to any eventuall mount.

[Archdukechocula]

Usually when it includes "model" in the description - its the entire model on one base, so affects mounts, but some items also specify the mount being included.

If Ring of Darkness would affect the mount as well, that means;

- That our Black Dragons can become T7, W7 due to the Armour of Living Death.

- That our Black Dragons can get a 1+ Save vs Shooting, and a 2+ save in cllose combat.

- Our Dark Pegasus/Manticore's can become T6 for a round,due to the Black Dragon Egg.

- Our mounts would get +3 Strenght from Potion of Strenght.

Why? Because in the descitpion for AoLD, SDC, BDE and PoS - it refers to "the modell".
Now tell me this isn't rawabuse of the most disgusting level?

So no, Ring of Darkness does imo not give any benefit to any eventuall mount.

While I agree with you on nearly every case (GW again not seeming to understand their own damn rule set, and consequently mis phrasing everything under the sun), I think the Ring of Darkness may well be intended to work for the entire model. It makes sense that the effect would extend to the mount, and it isn't really that powerful. Compared to our wardsave options, which work against magic, template weapons, artillery and so forth, really the Ring of Darkness doesn't offer much for a mounted hero or lord. In essence, the RoD is like a 6+ ward save against close combat attacks, making it 18% more difficult to score a wound against the rider or mount. Against shooting, about the best you will get from it is an additional -2 to hit, which is comparable to a 5+ ward save versus shooting that uses Ballistic Skill only. That really isn't game breaking. If anything, it is a very reasonably priced item. Without that benefit, it becomes less appealing, and its use is limited to making units more survivable against shooting (which is nice, particularly for DR and Shades, but nothing to write home about).

[Minsc]

), I think the Ring of Darkness may well be intended to work for the entire model. It makes sense that the effect would extend to the mount,

Wouldn't it be "harder" for the Ring to hide a gigantic Dragon/Manticore, than those 4 humansized elves standing next to the wearer?

and it isn't really that powerful.

Agreed, but thats beside the point.

Either "modell" refers wearer + mount, or "modell" refers to wearer.
Both Ring of Darkness, and the items I listed affect "The modell", so either they all work on the mount, or none on them work on the mount.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a S9, T7, W7 Dragon with 1+ Armoursave vs shooting, but right now, it is as illegal as Ring of Darkness affecting the Dragon as well.

[Archdukechocula]

), I think the Ring of Darkness may well be intended to work for the entire model. It makes sense that the effect would extend to the mount,

Wouldn't it be "harder" for the Ring to hide a gigantic Dragon/Manticore, than those 4 humansized elves standing next to the wearer?

and it isn't really that powerful.

Agreed, but thats beside the point.

Either "modell" refers wearer + mount, or "modell" refers to wearer.
Both Ring of Darkness, and the items I listed affect "The modell", so either they all work on the mount, or none on them work on the mount.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a S9, T7, W7 Dragon with 1+ Armoursave vs shooting, but right now, it is as illegal as Ring of Darkness affecting the Dragon as well.

Well, it says in the BRB that a Rider and his mount are considered a single model. So what exactly is your evidence to the contrary?

[Minsc]

Well, it says in the BRB that a Rider and his mount are considered a single model. So what exactly is your evidence to the contrary?

Is this for the purpose of magical enhancement from magical items as well?
Because if thats true (I can't find my small rulebook atm, so I can't read the rule for myself.), then all Dark Elf players can rejoice because;

- Seadragon Cloaks affects the modell, so +1 Armoursave in close combat, and 2+ Armoursave otherwise. (1+ AS Dragons).

- Armour of Living Death affects the modell, so Dragons with T7, W7.

- Potion of Strenght affects the modell, so We can get S8 Manticores, and S9 Dragons.

[Silverheimdall]

Until now items had to specify including the mount, right? So unless an exception is made for the mount...

But yeah that 'single model' thing just leads to confusion

[Archdukechocula]

Well, it says in the BRB that a Rider and his mount are considered a single model. So what exactly is your evidence to the contrary?

Is this for the purpose of magical enhancement from magical items as well?
Because if thats true (I can't find my small rulebook atm, so I can't read the rule for myself.), then all Dark Elf players can rejoice because;

- Seadragon Cloaks affects the modell, so +1 Armoursave in close combat, and 2+ Armoursave otherwise. (1+ AS Dragons).

- Armour of Living Death affects the modell, so Dragons with T7, W7.

- Potion of Strenght affects the modell, so We can get S8 Manticores, and S9 Dragons.

I caught that the first time you said it, and as I said then, I agree with the overall point you are making. Obviously this was not intended to happen. However, in competitive play, intent really isn't relevant. We have to go by RAW. A RAW interpretation would lead us to believe that, yes all these things confer a bonus to the model (although I would argue that the Potion of Strength does not, but that is a needless digression). Personally, will I ever invoke these RAW interpretations in friendly play? No, I certainly will not, with the single exception of the Ring of Darkness, because in that case, I think the rules reflect both the intent and the RAW. To me, it makes perfect sense that the ring's smoke might cloud both the bearer and mount, regardless of the mounts size. More importantly, it makes sense to me that the designers might have intended it to behave in that way. And please don't bandy about "realism" stuff, because, for christ sake, we are talking about a magical item. Any rules by which it operates are effectively arbitrary. From a fluff and gameplay perspective, it seems perfectly sensible that the ring would grant this benefit, and it seems to match up well with the cost of the ring, especially compared to other choices we have available.

My guess is that all of these items will be FAQed at some point, which will resolve the issue anyway. Personally, I think that the Ring of Darkness will affect the mount in the FAQ, or it wont even be addressed at all. I think all the others will be FAQed to not work on the mount.

And by the way, if you are wondering about the relevant passage

Page 59 BRB

"Monsters are often employed as mounts for characters. A monster and its riders count as a single model in the same way as a cavalry model, although different rules apply."

It then goes on to explain those different rules. None of those different rules have anything to do with magic items, or this specific case. Neither are there any exceptions listed under the magic item section in the BRB. Therefore, the RAW seem to clearly indicate to me that yes, any magic item that affects a model, affects a rider and his mount. Until this is corrected (and I think it should be, let me be clear), the rules are pretty clear on the issue. A rider and his mount are a single model. These items affect the model. Therefore, it would follow that both rider and mount gain the benefits of these magic items, even if in some cases the result is very stupid (armour of living death in particular strikes me as idiotic). But, you know what? That was GW's goof, not ours. In the spirit of sportsmanship, I don't intend to take advantage of this instance of RAW, but in terms of interpreting the rules, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

Now, if you can quote me a passage somewhere that would contradict this, that's great. But until then, your argument is basically "Hey, the rules produce these absurd scenarios". While I agree with that, absurdity is hardly a novelty in warhammer rules, and it has never stopped the judges from using RAW. It can be dumb at times, but RAW is the only way we can play with a consistent set of rules. If you don't like a specific instance of RAW, houserule it for friendly play. I do. But don't expect to go to a tournament and expect people to ignore the rules as they are written.

[Silverheimdall]

Even under 'RAW' its a stretch.
If its not specifically mentionned that the mounts are affected (like Dragon Armour & Golden Eye of Tzeentch) then they do not affect the Mount!

[Archdukechocula]

Even under 'RAW' its a stretch.
If its not specifically mentionned that the mounts are affected (like Dragon Armour & Golden Eye of Tzeentch) then they do not affect the Mount!

Did you read the relevant passage?

It's pretty straightforward:

A rider and his mount count as a single model.

Ring of Darkness affects the model.

IT follows that, the rider and his mount being a single model, both would be affected.

Now I know you are saying this is a stretch, but you really aren't providing any sort of argument or counter-evidence that refutes this line of reasoning. You say, for example, that unless something says it specifically affects the mount, that it doesn't affect the mount. Where is your proof of this? Is that in an errata somewhere?

[Gastronauticon]

The rules are very clear on the model issue.

Yet, it is embarassing that a company or GWs size cant even keep track of a scant few keywords. Their own keywords for that matter...

I am going to go with Arch´s sportmanshipping until the FAQ comes out, i.e. the battlesnacks/armours are eaten/worn by the char only and the talisman affects the whole posse.

[Bad beast]

as per the rule book FAQ on the GW site

Q. Do ward saves and other special rules that apply to a character (including those coming from a magic item or a spell) also apply to the monster or chariot he is riding?
A. Because the rider and the mount can be hit separately any saves or special rules of the character (including those from magic items, spells, etc) are not passed to the mount and viceversa. There are a few exceptions to this rule however, when such rules do apply to both rider and mount: Psychology rules (see rule book, page 79), rules that the character wound confer to a unit it joins (like magic resistance), or if the rule itself specifies otherwise (certain magic items, Blessing of the Lady, etc.).

there you have it unless the ring of darkness gives the bonus to the unit, or the item states otherwise, it does not work, same goes for the seadragon cloak, armor of living death, potion of strength and any other such item that states model

[Silverheimdall]

Ah thats where I remember reading it! thanks B²

[Loki]

Then the Ring works for when shooting at the dragon (as it works for a unit) and doesn't work in combat for the dragon.

[Archdukechocula]

as per the rule book FAQ on the GW site

Q. Do ward saves and other special rules that apply to a character (including those coming from a magic item or a spell) also apply to the monster or chariot he is riding?
A. Because the rider and the mount can be hit separately any saves or special rules of the character (including those from magic items, spells, etc) are not passed to the mount and viceversa. There are a few exceptions to this rule however, when such rules do apply to both rider and mount: Psychology rules (see rule book, page 79), rules that the character wound confer to a unit it joins (like magic resistance), or if the rule itself specifies otherwise (certain magic items, Blessing of the Lady, etc.).

there you have it unless the ring of darkness gives the bonus to the unit, or the item states otherwise, it does not work, same goes for the seadragon cloak, armor of living death, potion of strength and any other such item that states model

THat would be the vital piece of information I was missing. Thanks.

[Matras]

Thanks, this was very helpful. Got some discussion on German boards over this...

EDIT: OOOkay...in the German AB it says "...all hits against the wearer and his unit...." . Is it the same in the English version? Because in that case, it would make a lot of sense that one would transfer it to a monstrous mount, too, since this would be like MR or other things mentioned in the FAQ.

[Silverheimdall]

It says "and the unit" for shooting - not for close combat attacks.