WARNING: Different Losing Control Rules for Mounts

I just noticed that Blazing Saddles and Empire in Flames have different rules under the "Losing Control" heading for when to roll on the Whoa Boy! table. The Blazing Sadles article says that a mounted warrior must roll on the Whoa Boy! table if they suffer ANY wound but Empire in Flames says that a mounted warrior must roll on the Whoa Boy! table if they lose their LAST wound. This is a huge difference and something to keep in mind if you want to use mounts.

Blazing Saddles

Quote :

If a mounted warrior is wounded, then the player must roll on the Whoa Boy! Table. This replaces the normal injuries chart. If critical hits are suffered then roll as many times as are required, taking the most serious result.

Empire in Flames

Quote :

If a mounted warrior has lost his last wound, then the player must roll on the Whoa Boy! table. This replaces the normal Injuries chart. If critical hits are suffered, then roll as many times as is required, taking the most serious result.

This largely eliminates Cianty's absolute worst case scenario in his amusing yet sobering review of riding rules in Mordheim but unfortunately all of his other points are still valid (https://boringmordheimforum.forumieren.com/t1633-whoa-boy-why-mounts-in-mordheim-are-overrated).

If you are somehow wondering which rules to use... stop thinking and the Empire in Flames rules!!!

(I haven't gone over the articles with a fine tooth comb but the other difference that I've known for a long while is that Blazing Saddles has the Mule Skinner hired sword and two scenarios which are not in Empire in Flames.)

Wow. I never noticed that. Nice find.
Although I did notice another difference between the two (do not know if this is old news, but at least I never spotted it in discussions ), which may be another argument for the EiF ones - the Movement costs for mounting and dismounting (differences highlighted):

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Mounting Animals. It requires a full move to mount or dismount a riding creature and the rider may not shoot or cast magic whilst doing so. A mount or its rider may not run or charge in the same turn that the warrior mounts or dismounts unless the rider has a Special Riding Skill that allows this.

Empire in Flames, p. 24 wrote:

Mounting Animals. It requires half a warrior’s move to mount or dismount a riding creature. A mount or its rider may not run or charge in the same turn that the warrior mounts or dismounts unless the rider has a Special Riding skill that allows this.

Great , nice finds.

I think a rework of the Whoa Boy! table could do it to improve mounted characters.

Currently they are waaayy to expensive.

@Mephysto... I did notice that in EiF last night also but thought that I'd played the rules wrong all this time. I didn't think to check Blazing Saddles to notice it was a difference! Thanks for sharing! Oh and you have just busted point 5 from Cianty's article!

@SerialMoM... I agree but things are better now than 24 hours ago for me!

I am always thrown by the slight but significant differences in Mordheim publications. We have played the EiF way for years and I don't even own that publication.

So add play by EiF rules to the suggestions I gave for improving mounts.

@VK... Good one!! I totally agree that people should investigate your group's rules for mounts (which are mainly at a campaign level I think).


I have just completed an exhaustive comparison of the two rules. There were two other differences that stood out to me in addition to the differences mentioned above.

First, the Athletic Mount skill now says in EiF that "The warrior must be within half his full move distance of his steed to use this skill." where previously in Blazing Saddles "The warrior must be within 2" of his steed to use this skill."

Second, the Blazing Saddles article also contains rules for Cold Ones which were excluded from the Empire in Flames article. Obviously this is because there are no official rules for Dark Elves and Skinks which are the only races able to use a Cold One mount.

I also noticed that Giant Spiders were halved in size from "10 to 12 feet long" down to "five to six feet long". (Still the stuff of nightmares! ) Besides what has been mentioned, the remaining differences were a lot of spelling, grammar and capitalisation changes.

Also this is not a difference but should be different in that I noticed that there is a typo in the Immune to Psychology rule for Nightmares for EiF that still refers to the rider suffering a wound rather than losing their last wound.

RationalLemming wrote:

I also noticed that Giant Spiders were halved in size from "10 to 12 feet long" down to "five to six feet long". (Still the stuff of nightmares! )

I applaud the Altdorf Society for Arachnology's decision to follow the new scientific standards and consequently measure the length of the common Aranea magna over its body only, instead of adhering to the antiquated and most unacademical habit of including the legs in the equation.

Very interesting to see the little details behind this rules update (and shame on you for missing that last reference, EiF-crew! ). Thanks for your work of comparing the two and the insights, RationalLemming!

Mephysto wrote:

RationalLemming wrote:

I also noticed that Giant Spiders were halved in size from "10 to 12 feet long" down to "five to six feet long". (Still the stuff of nightmares! )

I applaud the Altdorf Society for Arachnology's decision to follow the new scientific standards and consequently measure the length of the common Aranea magna over its body only, instead of adhering to the antiquated and most unacademical habit of including the legs in the equation.