Ok I've just been looking at my army book and noticed that nowhere does it say eternal nobles/highborns can't be mounted. This makes the eternal noble like twice as good as normal but when they charge would their weapon count as 2 hand weapons for the 2 attacks in base contact or as a spear. Also theirs the possibility and the way I'd play it as that it counts as both. As the fight style grants 2 attacks with a spear it would seem logical. The other issue is with armour. Would the mount boost the save to 4+ or would it stick to the 5+ as per the fight style (though that says its just for the weapons and armour)

Yes, you can mount them.
Yes, they will have a 4+ save.
Yes, they count as being armed with two close combat weapons.
No, it does not count as a spear.

If you look at the rules for the style you'll find that it say:
They are considered to fight as if they were armed with two hand weapons in close combat if they are in base contact with an enemy. In addition, they may fight with and additional rank (as if armed with spears) to the front, although models doing so only get a single attack.

So basicly they don't "have" spears per say, they can simply fight in two ranks. When in base to base they fight as if armed with two hand weapons.
They keep their longbow as well though :p

but it also says that although some use spear-staves others use spears and shields, the fight style just makes them attack as if with 2 hand weapons for the bonus. This is where I was tripping up.

Ahh yes indeed it does. But the thing is, GW never take fluff into account when they make rules (I mean, just look at the high elves <_<)

The main rule they use and have always used is that, one should follow the rules as written. And as I showed that is how the rules are worded.

I would personally agree with you and say it's both a spear and two hand weapons, but that is purely fluff based and has little to do with rules. Well unless your opponent want to be nice and agree to allow it.

How do you distinguish the fluff from the rules in that paragraph though. Else where it is clearly shown by italics however in that section every bit of info is rule as written. Also by that reckoning of how it is worded it clearly says they fight "AS IF they were armed with two hand weapons". The same goes for spears. "They may fight with an additional rank AS IF armed with spears" This means they are armed with a weapon that produces both rules for the weapons stated. This is why I believe they have both.

(I like this, havn't descussed a rule from the book since like two weeks after it came out and we sorted over all the flaws (not that there were many :wink: )

No no, you overlook a part.

They are considered to fight as if they were armed with two hand weapons in close combat if they are in base contact with an enemy. In addition, they may fight with and additional rank (as if armed with spears) to the front, although models doing so only get a single attack.

So when in base contact they fight as if they had two hand weapons. And the part mentioning spears are in bracets. It say, as I underlined. They may fight with an additional rank.

Ie, there is nothing here implying they have spears. Save for the fluff part in the start.

You have an excellent point and I understand fully what you are saying except that if its in brackets it should be ignored compared to non brackets. Also if you follow wysiwyg which GW tend to focus on then they have made their models to defy this. I wish someone else would contribute to this thread (i know i just started it really) otherwise were just gonna be throwing the same points at each other lol.

Just because you asked Seany:

GW really changed their rules policy in recent years though,
when I used to play a whole lot like 6 or 7 years ago they always went with WYSIWYG, or you could use units or weapons that "counts as" something else, and they would consider the best situation to use from the story (fluff) perspective.

However i noticed about 2 or 3 years ago in the last several tournaments i played in that all that had changed. I guess too many people were taking advantage of the old rules policy and now everything is strictly RAW (rules as written). Now you aren't supposed to look at a rule and interpret it by seeing what would "make sense". You have to read it as carefully as possible and only interpret as those rules say.

Personally i liked it better the old way, it made games more fun because it almost encouraged players to interpret rules however they made sense on the fly. But now it doesn't work that way, so i think Darkblade is right in this situation.

If I were playing with you in a pickup game I would consider things the old way, and let the mounted eternal get +1 str for a spear. Its just more fun way. In a shop against people you don't know as well things would probably be different.

Between the two of you you have well and truly told me lol. I guess i'll just have to pretend they are holding really long single handed weapons lol. As annoyed I am that the chance of gaining both an extra attack and strength is gone I am quite relieved that if I add him to a unit of glade riders I don't have to work wounds out differently lol. At least he has a better save.

Good to see you about again WinterGulrdian. You going to be a more permanent visitor here now? Eternals need a new Leader...

I never really left, I always checked back to the site as a lurker.
I guess i never thought i had anything to add.

But i'll post more often now, it seems the site is starting to liven up a little bit again.

Now's the fun part where I get to point out that mounted models with two hand weapons do not gain an extra attack.
As eternal's fight as if with two hand weapons, and two hand weapons in this situation would give no bonus, then I'd assume they have no combat bonuses at all while mounted.
You could still do this just to get a decent save, but I think there are probably better ways.

Damn lol.

lol that was a slap in the face Seany, sorry.

I'm surprised, with all of this rules debating none of us remembered that one until now.

I guess with being in the woods you tend to get abit of a wooden head lol I'm trying to think of other rules that could be debated but I think we covered everything else almost as soon as the book came out lol, damn were good :wink: