Coven Throne - anyone using it ?

[Keith]

Hi all

I was looking for something in between a Vamp Lord and a Vamp Lord on a Zombie Dragon.

So I'm looking at the Coven throne , the stats look OK , and the command ability is really good.

I've just ordered one to paint  ,so it will be a good painting project if nothing else.

So do you guys run the Coven throne ? How does it go for you ?

I think it will go well with my favourite units which are Black Knights and Grave Guard so the throne will support them as my usual main attack units.

 

 

 

[Honk]

Goes on like a house on fire...

like you said, it stands between the Vl and the VloZd. 

The spell can shut down incoming melee threats, the CA is a nice boost for your heavy hitters and don’t forget the single re-roll...

but they are not a hammer unit like the VloZd, they are an utility support hero. Needs to be protected, if the spell fails, gets banned or you need to cast something else...

12 wounds against a shooty army, not much... 

buffing my 60 zbomb or blood/black knights is nice, ladies are fast and run very well with a Dragonlord or the Prince. The „downgrade“ from a double dragon list gives you more points  (180/220) for other units (vargheist/harbringers), who would also greatly profit from a bunch of rerolls of 1 and gives you more target saturation and Board control.

soooo, i‘ve had pretty good games (3-1) with the pimpwaggon, won against Trees, Khorne (LoBlood) and Brayherd (LoNight); lost against Ironjawz (LoSacrament) but didn’t play very well

Which I now have stated like the fifth time ?? and still not finished painting it...

*shame...*shame...*shame...

[Espy85]

I love the model and when I play with friends it's a fixed piece. but I do not take it to tournaments because of the problem with the rules. in fact, today it is not clear what is to be considered a mount and what is not. so any bonuses on artifacts and command traits do not know what attacks would affect. if, however, you play units like vargheist and blood knight this model is inescapable given its command ability.

 

[deynon]

I play two of them, magnetised in the way to be coven, palanquin (never possibly) and mortis as I prefer^^

I have for sure realize the video about it's magneization.

[Keith]

Ok thanks guys I feel encouraged to see the project through

[Luke82]

I’ve just added a counts-as coven throne to my skeleton army.

My first game with it it was fin slapped to (re)death in the first turn by my pal’s Idoneth turtle, so it’s fairly squishy, especially if it’s the only big tempting target on the board.

Yesterday I played against a Slaves to Darkness army and it was really good, mainly as a support piece but also ended up taking out a chaos lord and war shrine in melee, healing the few wounds it had taken.

Well worth the points I think.

 

[Lemon Knuckles]

On 11/4/2018 at 6:24 AM, Espy85 said:

but I do not take it to tournaments because of the problem with the rules. in fact, today it is not clear what is to be considered a mount and what is not.

It's funny how no one ever questions whether the Vampire Queen is considered the hero.  That part is crystal clear to everyone.  I am disheartened that this is even a debate.  There are a bunch of problems created by treating all parts of the model as a hero, and no downside to taking the common sense view that just the Queen is the hero.  Conversely, there is no upside to taking the view that it is all hero other than the desire to exploit artefacts and command traits in a way that literally no other model in the game can do.  But gamers gonna game I guess....

[Espy85]

I can agree with you @Lemon Knuckles, but if we talk about common sense, then we are not talking about rules, but about interpretation, as far as we know the GW could want the coven throne to have that advantage, or it may be a mistake they did not remedy. certainly the gw has been questioned several times on the matter, but has not responded. to date, those who want to use the model in a tournament must ask the organizers how to behave. this is why I had opened a topic on the subject, I would have liked someone to report experiences and not interpretations, which however correct are subjective.

[Lemon Knuckles]

21 minutes ago, Espy85 said:

I can agree with you @Lemon Knuckles, but if we talk about common sense, then we are not talking about rules, but about interpretation, as far as we know the GW could want the coven throne to have that advantage, or it may be a mistake they did not remedy. certainly the gw has been questioned several times on the matter, but has not responded. to date, those who want to use the model in a tournament must ask the organizers how to behave. this is why I had opened a topic on the subject, I would have liked someone to report experiences and not interpretations, which however correct are subjective.

Yeah, I don't want to get into it again, other than to say that the rules are not definitively clear either way, so common sense is all that's left.  It is not a case where we use common sense over the rules but rather a case where we have to use it to decide a case where the rules are not clear.  

But really the "confusion" comes from the misplaced emphasis on "mounts," as if that's the important part.  Really, the rule just divides the model into a hero part and a non-hero part.  In 99% of the cases, that non-hero part is a mount.

[Espy85]

quite right. I hope that soon the GW will decide to clarify the point. for now I will use the model only when I play with friends.

[deynon]

Doesn't exist a model prtly Hero, partly not. The model is hero. The bonuses can be given to part of it otherways.

Common sense varies quite a lot so it's not a referring. Apply common sense makes quite a lot of bias on different rules and units that had the same effect. No use n it

The rules are to follow, cause they don't change based on where you play.

And GW should be more precise with the writing, it has done such from NH:B , it should have taken note also about previous ones (moreover cause it has been asked about it since the release of the GA:D so some yeras...).

[Lemon Knuckles]

I'm not getting into it again with you suffice it to say that the rules are not unequivocally in support of your view as you take them to be.  Not even close. 

But you can feel free to keep being a d--k about it, and keep blaming GW, and keep fanning the flames of what should be a non-debate.  The only real consequence is people not feeling comfortable bringing their model to tournaments in case they run into a d--k.

 

[deynon]

The rules states as I said, but you dont' even read them, so try to read them. You even wuoted them and still you decide to fail reading them.

I can freely blaming GW, cause with NH:B and the others after it, it doesn't allow any misconception and so on. And the coven as been asked about since the release of the GA:D, so about 4 years? Still in the LoN:B the problem still there and no faq about it. But they had the time to FAQ the deathmarch and even release two faqs that  goes against each oteher about it.

The model is brought, the rules applied. The TO has to prepare a report about HR and so on. If it doesn't do so, the rules ae applid, so coven throne is applied as I said. If they change the rules they have to say about it.
You simply bring the model, nect time TO learn to do it better .

 

Cause they are doing quite poorly since quite some time about rules and HR mixing and not said or bias about it.

[Lemon Knuckles]

And I suppose you were the one guy who did not allow anyone to measure base-to-base in AoS1?  Because THAT was a rule that actually was clear.

[deynon]

20 minutes ago, Lemon Knuckles said:

And I suppose you were the one guy who did not allow anyone to measure base-to-base in AoS1?  Because THAT was a rule that actually was clear.

Cause you didn't read the FAQs where there was the one about "decorative bases can be considered part of the model" 

neither you read the TO writing it in their infopack I guess.

You really fail as a troll.

[Lemon Knuckles]

Look, this is the 2nd thread we've hijacked with our argument.  If you want to continue via PM, I'm up for it.  

Bottom line, I'm not trolling, I just think you are wrong.  Honestly, truly, by the rules, by the context, and by the best interest of the community, wrong.

I think most people are genuinely confused when they first read the mount rule and first read the description of the Coven Throne.  It is a natural initial reaction.  It was for me.  But spend some time working through it and it is not so confusing at all.  It is clear that there is a lot of downside and contradiction to the "everything is the hero, nothing is the mount" prespective.  And zero downside to the other view.

You can get all self-righteous and continue to proclaim that the rules support your view, and therefore your view is right and necessary for the integrity of the game.  But the rules do not unequivocally support your view.  They are ambiguous, and require the reader to interpret.

You like to say that everyone else is interpreting and you are not.  But that simply isn't true.  You are interpreting at least two things:

1. What a "Coven Throne" is or isn't.  The Queen is mounted on the "Coven Throne."  You are choosing to believe that the Hosts and the Handmaidens are not part of the Coven Throne.  Nothing in the rules authorizes this.
2. That the definition of a mount as the thing being ridden is more important than the definition of the hero as the thing doing the riding.  Yes, the rules don't say that the Vampire Queen is literally mounted on the Spectral Host, but they also don't say that the Spectral Host is mounted on the Coven Throne.  

So at best, the rules are ambiguous.  And only in this specific instance where the model doesn't fit into an obvious binary hero/mount division.  However, the ambiguity can be resolved through careful consideration of context, rules implications, comparisons with other models, fluff and common sense.  In which case, only one interpretation makes any sense at all.

[deynon]

You are interpretating. Queen , maidens and  ghostys are said to be different from the coven throne, which is said to be the mount.  Instead you try to twist everythime in the same way to make appear as your fantasy .

Also the maidens are mounted on the coven throne, so what? 

Nope, you continue to confuse the definition of HERO. Hero it's themodel, not part of the model. Anth the rules doesn't say the the quenn is mounted on specral hosts, the rules say that she is "protected by the spectral hosts swirling around" so you don't get even a bit of the rules  and you still claim to read them(sadly you do it wrong)...

 

The rules are not ambiguous,the rules are clair.I can not be glad of them and their precision, but they are clear and give me right, and give you wrong.

You don't or better don't want even understand the rules behind the Hero rules...so...

And stop to call the common sense cause your common sense would suppose the maidens be a mount based on your fantasy.

You are twisted in your way to the definition of mount and rider.

Your one is a fantasy, not an interpratation.

There are rules, follow the rules, stop. And the rules state that queen, maidens, and ghosts gain bonuses. This till GW will not release a FAQ that say otherways. Something that it's missing since GA:D, so 4 years almost.

[Lemon Knuckles]

If you really want to have a conversation, drop all the insults and exaggerations.  Try to understand what I've written.  Write out exactly why you believe the rules support what you are saying.  Write out the relevant rules and the logic you are using to connect them.

38 minutes ago, deynon said:

Nope, you continue to confuse the definition of HERO. Hero it's themodel, not part of the model.

 Yes, the whole model has the HERO keyword.  But the entire point of the Mount rule is to divide some HERO models into two functional parts:  the hero part and the mount part.  I am using hero in the latter sense.  There is nothing wrong or crazy about this.  Literally nothing.  

42 minutes ago, deynon said:

You are interpretating. Queen , maidens and  ghostys are said to be different from the coven throne, which is said to be the mount.  Instead you try to twist everythime in the same way to make appear as your fantasy.

But where is it said to be different than the Coven Throne?  Just because they are said to be "protecting" or "attending" the Vampire Queen does not logically entail that they are not part of the Coven Throne.  There is nothing in that phrasing that necessitates that interpretation.  It is an assumption you are making.  I  could write of a VLoZD that the Vampire Lord is mounted on a Zombie Dragon and protected by it's gaping maw and razor-sharp fangs.  The grammar would be the exact same, but no one would logically conclude that the maw or fangs are not part of the Zombie Dragon.  Again, it comes down to the question of what is a Coven Throne, and there is nothing explicit in the rules that defines what it is.    

If you assume that the Spectral Host and Handmaidens are NOT part of the Coven Throne, you create the following problems:

1. You create a mounted hero model that is functionally unlike any other mounted hero model in terms of its capacity to exploit the benefits of artefacts and command traits.  Not by a little bit....  by a metric f--k ton.
2. You create a mounted hero model that is actually comprised of multiple heroes--something unprecedented for unnamed hero models.
3. To say that the Coven Throne is a mount, and also say that every part of that model with an attack profile is not part of the Coven Throne, would introduce an unprecedented concept into the game--that there is a functional part of a model for rules purposes that has zero stat-lines.  It's like talking about the saddle on a VLoZD... for purposes of the rules, who cares?  It functionally doesn't exist.  To say that the Coven Throne isn't any of the things that have stats or abilities but that it is still a thing pointed to by the mount rule seems needlessly convoluted and silly.  Occum's razor applies here.
4. You go against the implication given by the model description:  "attending" and "protecting" are deferrential actions, that are obviously being made toward the Queen.  The implication is strongly that she is the hero.
5. You go against the fluff:  Spectral Hosts are not the stuff of heroes.
6. You willingly ignore the consensus interpretation of the warhammer community and create confusion where it doesn't need to exist.  GW rules writers are far from perfect, but not every little bit of possible ambiguity has to be exploited for maximum drama.  Common sense does not have to be a dirty word, and where it can be used to help make a "not perfectly perfect" wording functionally clear, it should.  

[deynon]

You are asking for what you don't give.

here is not a hero rider and a mount, there is onyl a Hero model.  You are creating fantasies.

It's written when it states that there is a vampire queen, a mount coven throne, an accmpany maidens and protected by ghosts. Coven throne as  ount is different from maidens, queen and ghosts. The text itself say it.

It's you that are creating fantasies about maidens being a mount.

You cna't use zombie dragon and terorgheistt as comparison, cuase it's written theat it's terorgheist and zombie dragon that are the mouunts. Those have attacks and so on,the coven throne as mount does not have attacks, simply so.

You continue to misunderstand what Hero mean in AoS, is the model that is a Hero, not part of it. Again with the ghosts, why the should be a hero? They are cause they are a part of the model., everything stop there. You are creating fantasy again and again.

Don't care abut a consensus that it's built on bias. As it was for many other rules, as it is has been in the past for FW and compendiums. Or as the ability to use warscroll battlaion ok for some new armyies and other not using the same referring as wording.

You value too much your common sense, moreover when you use it to twist rules that state otehrways.

If a TO wants to use rules differently thay have to write an approrpiate infopack about it, otherways the rules are clear and are as I said.

Without an official FAQ it's such.

And you asked me to stop continuing, so stop continue to try to twist the rules with your fantasy. Create your own events and create an infopack that say otherways.

HR are not an evil thing, you can admit to use them cause you prefer them, simpy don't try to make see your HR as the rules , cause they are not such.

Common sense has to be apply ever, not only when someone prefer it. And common sense has to be written too, what you think is common sense, is not everyone think the same it is.

And rememebr that a mount not necessarily has only a isingle rider.

And Hero is the model, not part of it.

[Lucky Snake Eyes]

@deynon and @Lemon Knuckles Deynons logic would also imply that for example, the grot shaman arachnarok spider would function similarly, with the grot crew getting the same bonuses as the shaman hero, or any mounted hero choice that consists of a hero, crew and vehicle/creature.

Unfortunately the wording isn't as specific as we'd like (such as vampire lord *on* zombie dragon or chaos lord *on* daemonic mount) but it. Also does it specify mounted as a keyword for the mortarchs? (i don't have my battletome with me right now), but by the same logic their spirits would receive any benefits, not that there's many to be had.

[Lemon Knuckles]

32 minutes ago, deynon said:

here is not a hero rider and a mount, there is onyl a Hero model.  You are creating fantasies.

For every other rule I agree with you since every other rule treats the model as a single thing.  But in the context of the mount rule, it specifically divides the model into two parts: a hero and a mount.  If the whole model is always all hero, even in the context of the mount rule, then the mount rule itself makes no sense.  I really, honestly do not understand your point here. 

Let's take a different example.  VLoZD.  I am sure that you do not play that the Dragon Maw attack benefits from artefacts or command traits, right?  But the mount rule says that apply to attacks made by the hero.  And you keep saying that the whole model is the hero.  So why does it not apply?

39 minutes ago, deynon said:

It's you that are creating fantasies about maidens being a mount.

You cna't use zombie dragon and terorgheistt as comparison, cuase it's written theat it's terorgheist and zombie dragon that are the mouunts. Those have attacks and so on,the coven throne as mount does not have attacks, simply so.

You misunderstand me.  I am not saying that the maidens are the mount.  I am saying that the maidens are part of the Coven Throne; they are what make it a Coven Throne.  There is no Coven Throne without maidens and Spectral Host.  

Out of curiousity, how do you interpret the rule being applied to the Bloodseeker Palaquin?

37 minutes ago, Lucky Snake Eyes said:

Also does it specify mounted as a keyword for the mortarchs? (i don't have my battletome with me right now), but by the same logic their spirits would receive any benefits, not that there's many to be had.

Wouldn't matter for mortarchs since they are named characters and can't take artefacts or command traits.

[Lucky Snake Eyes]

13 minutes ago, Lemon Knuckles said:

Wouldn't matter for mortarchs since they are named characters and can't take artefacts or command traits.

What about being affected by command abilities that give modifiers?

[Lemon Knuckles]

The mount rule does not apply to command abilities or allegiance abilities.  Those apply to attack profiles of the whole model.

[RuneBrush]

+++MOD HAT+++

I'm locking this thread as I think the original conversation has now finished.

I don't feel this is the right place for the the mount/not-mount discussion and instead recommend that you send this question to the official rules team at aosfaq@gwplc.com.  If unsure for a game, your best bet is to talk to your opponent beforehand or for tournaments, the Tournament Organiser.