"Hearts of steel" prayer clarification

Quote :

Any allied warriors within 8" of the warrior become immune to Fear and All Alone tests.

"allied warriors" = any member of warband + hired swords
OR
"allied warriors" = any member of warband + hired swords, excluding warhounds
We had a little argument about this one - I'm just making sure that everything is clear.
In rulebook word "warrior" means "every model". So my answers is that the former is correct.
What you say?

There was another thread discussion that dealt with this very topic, about the definition of "warrior". As I understand it, the term "warrior" refers to any model that is not an animal or terrain/obstacle.
Hope that helps.

In my WH warband:

Quote :

The maximum number of warriors in the warband may never exceed 12.

So if animals are not warriors they are not counted toward limitation?
In rulebook "warrior" is used every time when, for example, models actions are described:

Quote :

running
The normal Movement value of models represents a
warrior moving at a fairly rapid rate, but allows time
for him to aim and shoot a weapon and generally
observe what is going on around him.

Animals cannot run?
"warrior" is used interchangeably with "model" in any part of the rulebook.
Let's take a look at the "Led'z go!" spell from Orc list:

Quote :

Any Orc or Goblin within 4" of the Shaman will automatically strike first in hand-to-hand combat regardless of
other circumstances. The spell only lasts until the caster is knocked down, stunned or taken out of action

It shows clearly which models benefit from the spell (o&g) and which ones not (squigs, trolls, hired swords).
In "hearts of steel" there is only "allied warriors" not "any humans and non human hired swords".

I agree with catachanfrog
Warrior = Model.
The way I figure it, you usually see rules apply to heroes, henchmen and/or hired swords, and "warrior" in rules that apply to all three types

The prayer does not affect animals. Warriors & models are group specific terms and not treated as being interchangeable.

The prayer also seems to have ramifications in multi-player scenarios. If the Sigmarite Priest's warband teams up with another player then depending on the scenario, a 'faithful' allied players warriors could legitimately benefit from the 'waves of glory' surrounding the warrior-priest!

Regards,

Werekin

I say that Warrior = models so in this case the warhounds are warriors.
The reason you give with the WH's max size (Skaven, Undead, ext too) is the exact same.
If Warriors = non animal models then you can hire animals with no restriction to warband size and that is not the intent.
If the spell's intent is for non animal warriors then it is miss writen and needs to be "fixed".

Quote :

If the spell's intent is for non animal warriors then it is miss writen and needs to be "fixed".

I disagree. The way the prayer is described it would not affect a dog!

I've heard of man's best friend but that's just ridiculous. Animals won't be able to take heart in the holy liturgy of a priest. *scoff*

Your reffering to the "fluff" of the prayer. So we are looking to fluff to make rulings?
By that logic we can look at "Healing Hands" and require base contact even though the rules state 2" (2" would be in terms of the models about 2 meters/6 feet or more). Though the rules state 2", meaning base contact would not be needed.
This is not exactly the same but it is using the same area of the rule (description) to justify "not animals" when it is clear in many areas of the rules "warriors" means.
P.16: "Each warrior may only cause one critical hit in each hand-to-hand combat phase..."
This mean that animals can not cause Critical hits?
of course not, it simply means what it does and that is any warrior (interchangable with model) can cause critical hits.

If you can convince the followers of Chaos that your warrior-priest is Doctor Doolittle then good luck to you. I'm not buying it.

Quote :

There was another thread discussion that dealt with this very topic, about the definition of "warrior". As I understand it, the term "warrior" refers to any model that is not an animal or terrain/obstacle.

In the other thread I asked werekin how he was using the term "warrior" in his rules because of the above confusion about how the Mordheim rules use the term.

Without an official opinion to appeal to I'm figuring that catachanfrog is right to include animals in the definition of 'warrior' given the gereral usage of the term throughout the rules.

Werekin's point about the fluff of the spell is also valid, however, since the Mordheim rules put no restriction on whom a player may ally with during a multi-player game, 'allied warriors' could mean Beastmen or Possessed just as well as Reiklanders or Marienburgers.

All right then:

Quote :

As the three words of power are spoken, waves of glory surround the servant of Sigmar. The faithful are heartened by the warrior god’s presence.

So anyone who says it's a conventional prayer is mistaken, it's a "spell" and "faithfull" don't fight harder because they are roused up by priest's oratory skill, but are under influence of power he's calling upon.

my point is from a "fluff" stand point your argument makes sense but from a rules stand point they do not.
The rules use the term "warrior" to mean all models and for this reason it is that dogs/cats/rats/ext are effected.
Dr. Doolittle or not doesn't mater. The rules supersead fluff unless you in your group make house rules to change it. As it stands the rules are as writen that all allied warriors are effected and warriors mean models. Otherwise some one could argue that in this same case that "warriors" means exactly that... the models known as warriors (Merc warband and in a few others). why?
Well this is the one place in all the rules (outside the "Warriors description" that "Warriors" does not mean "All Models" but only some... Thus it must literally mean "Warriors".

Quote :

As it stands the rules are as writen that all allied warriors are effected and warriors mean models. Otherwise some one could argue that in this same case that "warriors" means exactly that... the models known as warriors (Merc warband and in a few others). why?
Well this is the one place in all the rules (outside the "Warriors description" that "Warriors" does not mean "All Models" but only some... Thus it must literally mean "Warriors".

This is one interpretation. The Mordheim rulebook doesn't give any definition for this. Consequently it is hardly sufficient to quote the rulebook when it fails to supply clarification.

My main concern is that I don't think it's okay to assume animals benefit from all types of effects, even when a rule or guideline fails to supply explicit detail to the contrary. It doesn't always make sense and I'm inclined to suspect that developers paid scarce attention to detail for this topic. Here's an example why I find it grating;

e.g. Warrior-priest uses prayer making his dog become immune to fear caused by enemy warriors brandishing torches.

I don't think it's cool to treat animals as warriors! That's not an accurate representation. You must be willing to apply some common sense or academic learning or else we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Quote :

Werekin's point about the fluff of the spell is also valid, however, since the Mordheim rules put no restriction on whom a player may ally with during a multi-player game, 'allied warriors' could mean Beastmen or Possessed just as well as Reiklanders or Marienburgers.

There were some guidelines about allies included in Border Town Burning. I think if your Beastmen player is teaming up with the Reiklanders then you're not facilitating a very enjoyable campaign. It doesn't take much effort to supply credible motives for alliances.

Regards,

Werekin

I'm not arguing against logic in the least, I am stating that though the rules are not perfect they should be viewed consistantly and not picking and chosing what rules you interpret one way and then take the same word and interpret it another way.
This is why I say the rules here are clear that dogs are warriors.
The only way to fix this and apply logic is to house rule the change. Just because you don't agree with the rule is no reason to say the rule is not so.

case in point is with Dual Weilding. Logic says that to dual weild is harder then to just use one hand weapon. But this is not the case in the rules (but is something the development team does address as an issue but does not fix in the errata). So with the rules being as they are you must ether play them as writen or house rule a change.

I am far from saying here that it makes sense that this/any prayer effects the wardogs (though I could see some argument being made for it), I'm simply saying logical or not that the rules are as clear as they are with most other sections of the game about this.

Quote :

This is why I say the rules here are clear that dogs are warriors.

Listen to yourself...

The rules do not state that dogs are warriors. It is stated that dogs count towards the maximum number of warriors allowed in your warband. This is a guideline for calculating warband size. I would not assume that it was intended to be used for another purpose.

An animal is treated as part of the equipment of the Hero who bought it. Animals and mounts are elsewise referred to as models and mounted models. They are not warriors.

That clarification is made in refrence to buying a dog (or other animal) not in the warband henchmen list.

Rule book:
p.6

Quote :

Strength indicates how strong a warrior is! It is especially important for hand-to-hand combat, because the stronger you are the harder you can hit. A Strength value of 3 is about average.

Quote :

The Attacks value indicates how many blows the model can make in hand-to-hand combat. Most warriors have an Attacks value of 1, but powerful fighters may have more. The more Attacks you have, the greater the chance you’ve got of beating your opponents into an unrecognisable pulp!

p.8

Quote :

2 Movement
During the movement phase you may move the warriors of your warband according to the rules given in the Movement section.

p.10

Quote :

The normal Movement value of models represents a warrior moving at a fairly rapid rate,

This is just from me scanning the rule book for refrence to warrior.
In each of these areas warrior was used instead of model or indavidual.
This shows that the term "warrior" is used in the rulebook to mean the same as model.

As I said I'm not saying that Logic says that the Prayer should work for the dog. I am saying that per the rules it does.

Quote :

I'm not arguing against logic in the least, I am stating that though the rules are not perfect they should be viewed consistantly and not picking and chosing what rules you interpret one way and then take the same word and interpret it another way.

Exactly.
What I'm trying to show, is that rulebook writers haven't distinguished different types of units (warriors, animals) in rules section. They use word "warrior" alternatively with a "model" (which should be everytime) in most cases. In "heart's of steel" prayer, "warrior" is used again and since there was no clarification about who's a warrior model, dogs would benefit from it. Dogs are "animals", sure but let's say, flagellant's are not "warriors" when it comes to special rules. Rest is what Pervavita said earlier.
I (almost certainly) won't be using "hearts of steel" to make my dogs fearless. I am aware that prayers of Sigmar are rather dedicated to human kind than dogs an

None of these excerpts lend any credence to animals counting as warriors. None of those entries were written bearing canines in mind because the landslide majority of models in Mordheim warbands are warriors. Animals are few and far between.

Your priest must be 'barking' if his lap dog can interpret the word of Sigmar.

Really? I can't see how you come to that conclution.
I understand you don't agree with the fluff of the rules in this that it makes no sense that a god (Sigmar in this case) would give any blessing to animals but that doesn't change the writing of the rules.

Take my first example from the above listing. If this use of "warrior" does not mean all models then what does strength mean for animals?

Movement, if this does not mean animals are "warriors" then animals do not move per the rules as this rule set spacificly states how "warriors" move... There is no rule in the book that says how animals move so animals can not move by your logic.

If the quotes from the rules do not apply to animals because they refrence warriors and not models then animals do not move and there will be other areas in the rules that make animals not viable.

Your only quote from the rules that leads you to say that warriors do not equal aniamals too is:
p.38

Quote :

Wardogs count towards the maximum number of warriors allowed in your warband.

This does not say "animals" but refrences spacificly Wardogs and not Warhounds (Witch Hunters), Giant Rats (Skaven), or any other animals.
Also from my reading of this one rule refrence is making it clear that any warband may buy Wardogs and makes it clear that to buy Wardogs they can not be used to bring your warband above it's normal max but rather even though equipment are part of the warband's max size.

The argument that the term warrior is used in the rules to also mean model is based on the rules threw out the rule book use the term warrior in exchange for model.

by your logic as prayers are nothing more then another form of spells then in Necromancy "Spell of Doom" could not harm animals as it specifies that it harms "warriors".
or by your logic that Priest prayers can not effect animals because "animals just can't understand the words" or "a god wouldn't effect animals" would mean that "Soulfire" would not effect Chaos Hounds, Dire Wolves, Giant Rats, ext even though the rules say "models".

werekin wrote:

Your priest must be 'barking' if his lap dog can interpret the word of Sigmar.

I say it again: this is not a normal prayer. Sure, it's in the "prayers of Sigmar" list but when reading background text, you will see it is not a normal prayer.

Quote :

As the three words of power are spoken, waves of glory surround the servant of Sigmar. The faithful are heartened by the warrior god’s presence.

It's like a magic spell - you speak arcane words and get the effect. No one have to understand them (and should not) to be affected.
This discussion is not about Sigmar being worshipped by dogs - it's about wording which rules makers used to write the stuff. Pervavita (mainly Pervavita) and I are trying to prove that, by the raw rules, dogs will legally benefit from "Hearts of Steel" prayer. This is because in prayer's rule word "warrior" is used to indicate benefiters of the prayer's effect. The same word is used in rules section when actions that ANY (unless stated otherwise) model may perform in the game are described. Rulebook does not make distinction between warrior and animal models in that section - they both use the same set of rules. Since warb