Being mounted is the consequence / result of bearing a mount, I don't think it's any more complicated than this.
I'm sure you're right that it
shouldn't be any more complicated than this and that I'm splitting hairs. You seem to be reading the rule one way and I'm reading it another, and while I want to agree with you I also want to make sure it's right. Of course the rule was created to define which characters are mounted (the ones with mounts) and which aren't. It's just that the way it was done leaves ambiguity if a character can ever become mounted without a mount. The way it should have been written is "A character bearing a mount is said to be mounted" or "A character is mounted if it is bearing a mount." Instead, doesn't the rule seem to say that a mounted character is, by definition, bearing a mount? That being mounted is sufficient for bearing a mount, rather than the other way 'round?
If it said "Rohan Stable Master counts as a possession of class mount", then yes, Éomer would get the bonus because he'd be "bearing a possession with the class of mount". That would also make him "mounted".
With the definition Decipher gave us, can you say that
Rohan Stable Master doesn't effectively mean this? See my strike-out above. If A = B and B = C, then A = C is what I'm saying. I'm aware that the transitive property can be misused -- I just want someone to point out why I'm wrong here
The wording of Éomer is kinda funny... this is Bloodlines (13) and Rohan Stable Master is Hunters (15), we have to at least consider there was some thought behind this and that Éomer was worded specifically to not work with Rohan Stable Master.
Interesting. Most people, or at least most people who are vocal about it, seem to believe the opposite: that because these are cards released in later sets, there was no real thought behind them and how they might interact with other cards. But that's the second question I'm trying to answer -- does it matter whether being mounted means bearing a mount if Eomer is only
considered mounted? Asked another way, is that word
considered the one that causes it to fall apart, rather than bearing a mount vs mounted? That might be where I land, I'd need to look over any cards with similar language and see how they're handled.