Eurlbad's Huskard Bonus

[Ogor Tyrannus]

Probably already covered but couldnt find it.  In the Eurlbad's battalion it says add 1 to the damage of all the huskard's melee weapons.  I assume this means only the huskard's punches and kicks and not the stonehorn's melee attacks as well.

Ruling?

[N_Watson]

I have been thinking about this as well. There are rules which specify the rider only, and there are rules which mention rider and mount. So I would assume, unless it gets FAQ, that all weapons on the melee weapon table get +1 damage. A little sloppy of them to not clarify it given that the artifact Blade of the Allfrost specify a riders weapon only. Other examples from the generals handbook. Meteoric Hammerblade and Might is Right.

[Donal]

it says "all melee weapons" used by the huskard. Considering he only carries one (and the rest is stonehorn) I think it was correct to have +1 damage for all the weapons including the stonehorn. 

 

[Beardyface]

If you read the description on the warscroll it says the Husksrd fights with punches and kicks then goes on to talk about how the mount fights. 

I'd say it's just the punches and kicks.

[Ogor Tyrannus]

So, first glad to see we don't have agreement here, makes me feel a little better for being confused.

Ordinarily I would agree with Beardyface...but...why the specific terminology in other artefacts/bonuses where they specifically say does not apply to the mount.  This definitely leaves the door open to assume that bonuses apply to the entire model unless specifically exempted.

 

Would love to get a ruling from GW but they haven't been responsive lately.

[Beardyface]

46 minutes ago, Ogor Tyrannus said:

So, first glad to see we don't have agreement here, makes me feel a little better for being confused.

Ordinarily I would agree with Beardyface...but...why the specific terminology in other artefacts/bonuses where they specifically say does not apply to the mount.  This definitely leaves the door open to assume that bonuses apply to the entire model unless specifically exempted.

 

Would love to get a ruling from GW but they haven't been responsive lately.

There's an FAQ that states you can't compare the wording between scrolls. There seems to have been no specific terminology used in rules writing so you need to take each rule at face value.

[Nico]

I think you're taking that single answer which was specific to one question out of context. You cannot use it as a club to insist on literalism everywhere.

[Beardyface]

59 minutes ago, Nico said:

I think you're taking that single answer which was specific to one question out of context. You cannot use it as a club to insist on literalism everywhere.

It's the same principle. You have to take the warscrolls at face value and apply the rules to them. The FAQ is very clear on that. 

[Donal]

Joys of AoS is just discuss with opponent and agree beforehand. I would (and have) played it as all the weapons because it states "all the weapons" and the melee weapons used are listed on the warscroll. If it was to just apply to the punches and kicks it would exclude the mount as per other artefacts in the same book.

 

 

[N_Watson]

2 hours ago, Donal said:

Joys of AoS is just discuss with opponent and agree beforehand. I would (and have) played it as all the weapons because it states "all the weapons" and the melee weapons used are listed on the warscroll. If it was to just apply to the punches and kicks it would exclude the mount as per other artefacts in the same book.

 

 

I agree. I feel that by not applying it to all weapons, you are just trying to second guess the rules. It says The huskard weapons. Who is to say that the stonehorn isn't a weapon used by the huskard. Would make fluff sense that the huskard would choose the biggest and baddest stonehorn he could fine to lead the formation! 

I second just finding an agreement with your opponent until there is a clear rulling specifying all mounted heroes on an FAQ.