Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 5, 2017 9:37:52 GMT
Unless specified otherwise, any effect that affects a cavalry unit affects both rider and mount. As there is no such specification regarding Frenzy in this case (nor in the BRB), it affects both rider and mount.
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 5, 2017 9:59:46 GMT
To clarify: while Frenzy affects both rider and mount, strictly speaking that does not apply to the Extra Attack.
BRB p. 70: Frenzy: To represent their fighting fury and lack of self-preservation instincts, Frenzied troops have the Extra Attack and Immune to Psychology special rules (see opposite and page 69).
BRB p. 69: Extra Attack: A model with this special rule (or who is attacking with a weapon that bestows this special rule) increases his Attacks value by 1.
So, both the rider and mount (= 1 model) are subject to Frenzy. However, the Extra Attack increases the Attacks value of the model by 1, not the Attack values. Perhaps an oversight, but as written, the model gains a single attack. I guess, you can choose whom to give the Extra Attack to (as that is not specified), but, RAW and without an FAQ allowing it, it cannot be more than one attack per model.
So to clarify (and to see if I got this right). The additional attack from frenzy should only be applied to either the rider or the mount not both, however it is almost universally (and by that I mean at the few clubs and tournaments I know and the ever accurate internet wisdom 😉) accepted/played that both get an extra attack from the frenzy. I love warhammer and the lack of logic in some circumstances
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 5, 2017 19:43:34 GMT
Well, that is where the RAW lead us - or at least me. And for me RAW=RAI, provided the rule is playable. As I have said before, there is a good chance that the rule may be sloppily written, forgetting that cavalry models have two profiles - but we simply cannot be sure.
On a general note: years of rules discussions have taught me that many people do not read the rules in the first place, or do not read what the rules actually say, but what they think the rules should say. It is true that GW writing skills left room for improvement (to say it mildly), but, apparently, so did our own reading skills, and rules discussions would be fewer and far shorter, if the actual rules would be read with greater attention. There are, in fact, iron-clad written rules (e.g. General and Highest Ld), which the vast majority of players have been playing wrong - demonstrably wrong, but not that it would change their position.
That said, there is always a difference between a rules discussion and a game. In a rules discussion, it is about the actual rules. In a game, it is about fun and fair play. Personally, I would allow the mount the Extra Attack, but I would not fault anyone who argues otherwise. Whatever players agree on during the game is fine (provided both are aware of the implications). That is more true than ever, since WFB and its rules have no official existence anymore.