[sdhakala]

It is really hard to write clear and unambiguous rules and anticipate each and every issue and rules conflict, and you are right the GW often has written ambiguous or unclear or conflicting rules at time. I absolutely agree on GW not doing a good job, especially in the last year on FAQs and errata and such. I understand your position but you are kind of missing part of the story that the Wood Elf army list specifically allows specific units with Asrai longbows and certain models with Asrai longbows to upgrade to enchanted arrows without any such restriction you posted in the database. I'm not a Wood Elf player but I followed the debate and issue and did an army book review. This issue was argued and resolved largely on a number of other sites and a number of TOs and ETC have ruled consistently otherwise, so your position is in the minority for a clear reason set forth below. I was actually shocked more Wood Elf players did not post or raise this issue on this site given the discussions I have read and the consensus that seemed to be reached. My point is that you took a specific position on a rule without apparently reading the full context of the debate on the issue and how most others had considered certain other precedents and the Wood Elf army list permissions in the army book (which has precedence) on this issue.

The army list of options for each character and unit trumps the BRB. If an army list specifically allows a unit to choose or be equipped with a specific magic item (base or as an upgrade) and allows multiple units or models to have the same magic item, then the "unique" restriction in the BRB (p.500) is over-ruled by the army book. Also, the army book rules even says that taking an enchanted arrow on a character does not prevent you from taking a second enchanted item. The army list rules are permissive in allowing each unit and specific character models equipped with Asrai Longbows to take enchanted arrow upgrades without any such limit of one unit per type of enchanted arrow, "The entire unit may take one of the following types of enchanted arrows:" [with the full list of types and point costs per model listed]. The army books do have such limits in other instances in the army list with language such as, for example, the Glade Guard unit wrt to magic standards says, "One Glade Guard unit with a standard bearer may take a magic standard worth up to...XX points". Thus, you are confusing one passage in the BRB (p. 500) relating specifically to magic items in the list of choices for unit banners and character upgrades with unit and specific model upgrades permitted explicitly in the army list for Wood Elves as unit upgrades.

There are prior precedents such as magic weapons on units and heralds in the DoC book. You are not limited to one herald on each Chaos god type because the heralds come equipped with a certain magic weapon and there clearly is nothing that says that taking a unit of bloodletters with Hellblades prevents one from taking a Herald of Khorne with a Hellblade or that a unit of plague bearers with Plaugeswords prevents a Herald of Nurgle from having a Plaguesword. If your interpretation were correct, then one could not take a unit of either bloodletters or plaguebearers because each is equipped with the same magical weapon and one certainly could not take two such units with the same magical weapon or a character and a unit with both having the same magical weapon.

I suggest you go on the Wood Elf site and read the whole context of the debate. Part of the problem is the way the issue is worded in the army book in an attempt to clearly make such arrows have magical attacks without thinking about how one might read the unique rule into that position, a standard GW problem. Part of the reason enforcing the unique rule makes no sense is because each model in an eligible unit is permitted to have the ssame type of enchanted arrows and that is clearly permitted, which clearly violates the unique rule (only one model or banner may have the magic item) from the start.

Anyway, while I posted this because putting such language in the Army Builder database is likely to cause confusion with users as opposed to merely noting that this issue may need to be resolved by an FAQ but you all are volunteers and I respect and have learned people in WHFB (and in law) see things and read things differently and don't work through the logic which is compounded by GW's unwillingness to clear up confusions caused by the way certain rules are written.