Mounted Warriors wearing heavy armor and carrying shields

The title pretty much says it. Does a knight wearing heavy armor and carrying a shield slow the horse down...

It seems to me it did in 4th and 5th edition Warhammer, which is why we may have played that it also did in Mordheim, but I am not finding the rule...

Humm. My memory is all over on this one. I don't remember any rule like that in Mordheim at all. I was thinking you were right abut the 4th/5th edition warhammer at first. But now I'm thinking that might have just been barding (or in combination with barding maybe). I know guys on foot took a movement penalty for heavy armor and shields unless they were dwarfs. But all I remember about the horses is the barding....

Wow you're right I cant find it in the MRB.I guess we always assumed it because in WHFB it was a rule.When I first started playing Empire Knights were movement 6 because of HA&S plus barding.
Also there is no mention of the freelancer hired sword(in HA&S) being movement 7.
In TC 12 the Q&A section has barding errated to say its neg 1 movement though.But if he gets OOA he only dies on a 1!
Pete

We have had more horses appearing in this campaign, since it is an Arabian campaign. I was sure the old Warhammer rule carried through to Mordheim, but not sure enough to call anybody on it. Now I'm glad I kept my mouth shut for once.

Thanks guys.

@Pete--I hated my M6 knights in 5th edition, but I loved that save.

The way I see it is that since heavy armour + shields gives a -1M penalty and the section for mounted models doesn't mention an exception the rule applies there as well. It doesn't say it's only for models on foot or anything like that.

+1 MasterSpark

MasterSpark wrote:

The way I see it is that since heavy armour + shields gives a -1M penalty and the section for mounted models doesn't mention an exception the rule applies there as well. It doesn't say it's only for models on foot or anything like that.

This is what we have played with for years as well. I'd say it's pretty RAW

fitterpete wrote:

Wow you're right I cant find it in the MRB.I guess we always assumed it because in WHFB it was a rule.When I first started playing Empire Knights were movement 6 because of HA&S plus barding.
Also there is no mention of the freelancer hired sword(in HA&S) being movement 7.
In TC 12 the Q&A section has barding errated to say its neg 1 movement though.But if he gets OOA he only dies on a 1!
Pete

We go with M6 when using heavy armour, shield, and barding. Brettonians in Fantasy Battle had exceptional warhorses that were not penalised by barding or armour. A special rare breed to be introduced?

Hello all.

We have never adjusted a horses movement based on its rider before.

If there was a -1M rule you'd hope they would have mentioned it in the original book with the Freelancer Knight, or in the mounted models section in the back pages. I'm not saying the book was perfect and things didn't slip through though.

If you argue that the heavier rider slows the mount what about an light rider speeding it up. Should hobbits be able to outride hulking norse warriors in a straight up race?

Finn.

Finn,

I don't think they would have to mention the movement penalty in the freelancer's rules. He's armed with heavy armour which has that special rule. Also, right at the start of the mounted rules in the rulebook it says that the rider & mount is treated as a single model in all respects, which should include the movement penalty the rider/model now has from the heavy armour + shield.

I think it's a reasonable sacrifice for the added protection you're getting. A lightly armoured rider will be able to move quicker, making it a conscious choice to make.

Edit: I can't speak for what the blazing saddles rules might be saying, though. I don't particularly care for those.

Quote :

The way I see it is that since heavy armour + shields gives a -1M penalty and the section for mounted models doesn't mention an exception the rule applies there as well. It doesn't say it's only for models on foot or anything like that.

Ah, I will re-read that section and go from there. Thank you for the continuing discussion.

Funny our group decided yesterday to get rid of the -1 movement for HA & S.
We are also introducing the Full Plate armor from the current Empire WHFB list.
Its 4+ armor save for 100gc and has the -1 movement if combined with a shield.

Thespian wrote:

fitterpete wrote:

Wow you're right I cant find it in the MRB.I guess we always assumed it because in WHFB it was a rule.When I first started playing Empire Knights were movement 6 because of HA&S plus barding.
Also there is no mention of the freelancer hired sword(in HA&S) being movement 7.
In TC 12 the Q&A section has barding errated to say its neg 1 movement though.But if he gets OOA he only dies on a 1!
Pete

We go with M6 when using heavy armour, shield, and barding. Brettonians in Fantasy Battle had exceptional warhorses that were not penalised by barding or armour. A special rare breed to be introduced?

I would support a house rule that provided some exceptions to the reduced movement penalty for Heavy Armour when mounted. Perhaps warhorses would not have the penalty or going a step further perhaps Elven Steeds / Arabyan Horses (VK's house rule treated as Eleven Steed but available to humans) could avoid the restriction. Normal horses though would have the movement penalty. Mounted warriors are generally penalised too much in Mordheim and this little house rule would at least provide some relief.

Master Sparks,

I'm not convinced by the logic of applying that rule to the letter. If my warrior has a severe leg wound this would also carry onto the horse he was riding?

Conversely my heavily armoured, shield carrying double handed weapon wielding dwarf (who suffers no movement when on foot) would be able to ride his mount without any penalty at all.

I couldn't spot anything in Blazing Saddles that would help this discussion either way.

Finn.

Finn wrote:

I'm not convinced by the logic of applying that rule to the letter. If my warrior has a severe leg wound this would also carry onto the horse he was riding?

That's a good point! As usual this is the product of GW's endlessly inconsistent rules writing. Following the rules as they are written the horse would suffer a -1M penalty for the rider's broken leg but that should definitely be house ruled out. The horse needs to carry the heavily armoured rider so I think the penalty there is still justified. Dwarfs, on the other hand, have it as their hobby to void the rules so I wouldn't hold them as a good measurement to other things. At least they're stuck with just mules if you're using blazing saddles, or nothing at all if you're not.