Fencer's Blades while mounted

[Vampire Ron]

I know that Additional Hand Weapons are not allowed when mounted, but how about paired weapons? It doesn't appear to say anything about it in the rulebook, but it seems a bit sneaky to me.
This has come from my desire to mount my favourite Fencer's Blades, Other Tricksters Shard Wight King in a unit of Black Knights, in case anyone was wondering.

EDIT: Realised I put 'Fancer's Blades' as the title. :slapface:

 

[Konrad the Blooded]

RE: Fancer's Blades while mounted

I would also like to see an answer for this as well seems like a bit of tricky word play.

 

[Chaos_Born]

RE: Fancer's Blades while mounted

I believe RAW you can; as you say there is nothing against paired weapons, only additional hand weapons. However, you are likely to get some irritated looks in games, after all it doesn't make a lot of sense

 

[Yorga]

RE: Fancer's Blades while mounted

If you get an extra attack from it, it is simply another way of saying "Additional Hand Weapon." What else can it be? Therefore you may not be mounted.

 

[Demian]

RE: Fancer's Blades while mounted

Well, there are many effects that grant the "Extra Attack" special rule (spells, Additional Hand Weapon, our very own Chaos Tomb Blade, etc)

And the only restrictions to Models on Foot are for the "Two/Additional Hand Weapons" section on Page 91.


Now, look under the Paired Weapons in the Reference section of the RB (page 500):

Paired Weapons are Magical, and have the "Additional Attack and Requires Two-Hands" special rules (from the FAQ).

Therefore, Fencer's Blades being under Paired Weapons, allow the wielder to be mounted.

=D

 

[Yorga]

RE: Fancer's Blades while mounted

Well, there are many effects that grant the "Extra Attack" special rule (spells, Additional Hand Weapon, our very own Chaos Tomb Blade, etc)

And the only restrictions to Models on Foot are for the "Two/Additional Hand Weapons" section on Page 91.


Now, look under the Paired Weapons in the Reference section of the RB (page 500):

Paired Weapons are Magical, and have the "Additional Attack and Requires Two-Hands" special rules (from the FAQ).

Therefore, Fencer's Blades being under Paired Weapons, allow the wielder to be mounted.

=D

My rule book only goes up to page 184.

 

[Demian]

RE: Fancer's Blades while mounted

My mistake. I have the little one that has a lot of pages.

Anyways, check in Magic Weapons, on the Reference section. There, it specifies the Paired Weapons, and makes no connection to the Additional Hand Weapon rule nor does it say Models on Foot only.

=D!

 

[Vampire Ron]

RE: Fancer's Blades while mounted

To me this seems totally RAW vs RAI. RAW do not say anything against this, though RAI to me seems to dictate that this should not be allowed.

 

[Demian]

RE: Fancer's Blades while mounted

Yeah, hehe. It's kinda hard to have a grip on the reins of the mount while slicing with both hands.

And yes, it would be easier if the just allowed anyone to use an Additional Hand weapon alongside any Magical ones, instead of bringing this odd rule of "Paired". This question would be answered quickly.

(aaand since RAW vs RAI is what we will finally get from this...) it would be cool for Models on Foot to have the advantage of "pairing" an additional HW with any magical ones, since mounted models get +1/+2 AS and get to use a Lance with a shield. Wishes wishes...

 

[maxtoreador]

Ruling at our shop:
Mounted limitation: "No Two/Additional Hand Weapons"
Translation: "No Two Hand(ed) Weapons or Additional Hand Weapons"

This also explains a no go on great weapons(requires two hands) and such on mounted models.

 

[ViolaGuy]

First post. The new Empire book clearly allows their Core Knights to take Great Weapons. The way I read it is: You cannot wield an additional hand weapon while mounted. You can however wield the Fencers Blade as it it simply 'paired'. Forget the fact that a paired weapon would be essentially an 'additional hand weapon' That's not what they said. They said it was paired and being paired grants the Extra Attack Special Rule. So I would say, yes you can use it, as it is a paired weapon; it's not an additional hand weapon, and yes you can use great weapons while mounted.

 

[maxtoreador]

Hmm, haven't seen enough of the new Empire book to know. Going to be interesting though, our "house ruling" where I play is GW+Horse=Invalid Build, even have a list checker copy of Battle Scribe that checks for that among other things. I can't even use GW's on the Coven Throne. :slapface:

"But my knights come standard with that!" :swear:
"Well it's not legal under the house rules. Fix your list." :tongue:

 

[Tawg]

I believe you should be allowed to use it.

I think if anything, why would you not 'House Rule' the term 'Paired Weapons' as simply meaning something else? Hell, honestly I am not even sure why they bother restricting anyone from taking an additional HW on mounted, that's silly in itself when we're playing in a world of vampires, magic, rat-men, and other ridiculous things, why not have epic heroes swinging with two weapons from horse back? The hell does that matter, just say they have very good saddles lol?

 

[Chaos_Born]

But then they couldn't have the hilarity of the crazy additional hand weapon savage orc boar boys falling off with reckless abandon

 

[Vampire Ron]

Hmm, haven't seen enough of the new Empire book to know. Going to be interesting though, our "house ruling" where I play is GW+Horse=Invalid Build, even have a list checker copy of Battle Scribe that checks for that among other things. I can't even use GW's on the Coven Throne. :slapface:

"But my knights come standard with that!" :swear:
"Well it's not legal under the house rules. Fix your list." :tongue:

I wouldn't like to be a Bretonnia player at your shop, no Questing Knights!

 

[Hanblack Nagash]

I think people ate reading into this too much. It is not an additional handweapon. Remember that the rulebook also states that although it says fencers blades it doesnr have to be swords for example. It cud be fist weapons with blades on the knuckles which would kae it very viable to ride a horse. If they were to operate like an additional handweapon it would say 'counts as additional hand weapon' and therefore the paired weapon rule would not exsist

 

[Bishop]

Ruling at our shop:
Mounted limitation: "No Two/Additional Hand Weapons"
Translation: "No Two Hand(ed) Weapons or Additional Hand Weapons"

This also explains a no go on great weapons(requires two hands) and such on mounted models.

*cough* How would you explain Bretonnian Questing Knights then ?


Not really ninja'd.. I didn't read that far down the thread yet.

Regardless... if Games Workshop has units that are Mounted with Great Weapons, it must clearly be allowed by the rules.

 

[maxtoreador]

Ruling at our shop:
Mounted limitation: "No Two/Additional Hand Weapons"
Translation: "No Two Hand(ed) Weapons or Additional Hand Weapons"

This also explains a no go on great weapons(requires two hands) and such on mounted models.

*cough* How would you explain Bretonnian Questing Knights then ?


Not really ninja'd.. I didn't read that far down the thread yet.

Regardless... if Games Workshop has units that are Mounted with Great Weapons, it must clearly be allowed by the rules.

Ruling predates me, no clue how any of it makes sense. However, it's play there or start my own group. The good news is being the only VC and our new book's release means I've been able to keep 90% of our shite straight with them for the next guy.

 

[Tawg]

*cough* How would you explain Bretonnian Questing Knights then ?


Not really ninja'd.. I didn't read that far down the thread yet.

Regardless... if Games Workshop has units that are Mounted with Great Weapons, without an explicit special rule for them doing so, it must clearly be allowed by the rules.

ftfy

 

[Chaos_Born]

Also, what about hexwraiths? Has that never come up with them before

 

[Tawg]

Also, what about hexwraiths? Has that never come up with them before

They are Ethereal, they obviously don't have to hold on to their mounts, silly :ghost:

 

[Fodderboy]

It was not uncommon to train war horses to respond to commands given by means other than reigns.

Otherwise, how is a bow used from horseback, as it has been for hundreds of years?

 

[hairyjeff]

Yeah, warhorses are trained to respond to knee pressure, and fight forwards at the same time. And when they run over you it HURTS. But ,back to thread, since several mounted units are equipped with great weapons, they must be allowed. Since paired weapons are not additional weapons, by definition, I believe they must be allowed. Since so many GW shop staff don't know their arse from a hole in the ground, their opinion should not be allowed. QED.

 

[FirestormXL]

Well, I think it's just an oversight and would never attempt to play it myself :s sos you have the raw to back you up but do you want to be "that guy"?


And I see above me the posts have devolved from rules into how warhorses and such work, so, on that note I shall submit to you that these are UNDEAD controlled by the will of our vampires so neyaaa neyaaa. no knee pressure, no training, just a skeleton under the subservience of our will.

 

[hairyjeff]

Yeah, ok, boney knees on boney ribs won't work too well. But I stand by the rest of my post. But...... Seriously, there is no good reason why magical weapons should be considered the same as mundane, or why great weapons should be allowed for some riders but not others. The game doesn't have to be logical, but its internal logic has to remain consistent, or no rules are relevant. If a weapon or item is not specifically excluded, I will always allow it if it is available as an option. So yes, a rider which has access to it could take the fencers blades.