Lone Wolf Development Forums  

Go Back   Lone Wolf Development Forums > Army Builder Data Files > Warhammer Fantasy 8th Ed.

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
EdSteiner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 722

Old June 11th, 2014, 12:38 PM
Fixed some background banner cost issues and waywatcher errata

Fixed for 2.76

Now, only if my friend would bring me back my book I could code the special characters
EdSteiner is offline   #21 Reply With Quote
sdhakala
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 27

Old June 11th, 2014, 08:44 PM
The comment on strict RAW regarding the enchanted arrows is wrong and does not make sense given the army book. The unique rule on page 500 of the rule book refers to named magic items in the BRB and the list of magic items pages but not unit upgrades or weapons that may be magical weapons or other magical items. This issue was fleshed out on a number of sites and is very clear. You have examples of magic weapons on certain models in certain Daemons army units being common and repeated throughout the army. You wouldn't say one cannot take two units of plague bearers, two heralds of nurgle, two heralds of khorne, two units of bloodletters, or two skullcannon chariots because the models in such units have magic weapons. The army book specifically does not restrict one to only one model taking each type of enchanted arrow and the army list is clear in treating these as model and unit upgrades without a lock out. Similarly, ETC and others have consistently ruled on this issue.
sdhakala is offline   #22 Reply With Quote
Ancelica
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 32

Old June 12th, 2014, 05:27 AM
Actually, the Wood Elves army book states that Enchanted Arrows are Enchanted Items. The BRB states that Magic items are considered unique - you can only have one of each in your army unless otherwise stated in the magic item's rules.

It doesn't actually say in the Wood Elves book that you CAN take more than one of each Enchanted Arrow in the army. It also does not say that Enchanted Arrows are unit upgrades. It says "The entire unit may take one of the following types of enchanted arrows..."

As Wood Elves players, we would love to be able to take multiples of some of the arrows, but some rules lawyers could argue that we can't. Until GW puts out an FAQ about it (or covers it in 9th Ed.) it's up to the players and TOs to work out among themselves.

A
Ancelica is offline   #23 Reply With Quote
EdSteiner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 722

Old June 12th, 2014, 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdhakala View Post
The comment on strict RAW regarding the enchanted arrows is wrong and does not make sense given the army book. The unique rule on page 500 of the rule book refers to named magic items in the BRB and the list of magic items pages but not unit upgrades or weapons that may be magical weapons or other magical items. This issue was fleshed out on a number of sites and is very clear. You have examples of magic weapons on certain models in certain Daemons army units being common and repeated throughout the army. You wouldn't say one cannot take two units of plague bearers, two heralds of nurgle, two heralds of khorne, two units of bloodletters, or two skullcannon chariots because the models in such units have magic weapons. The army book specifically does not restrict one to only one model taking each type of enchanted arrow and the army list is clear in treating these as model and unit upgrades without a lock out. Similarly, ETC and others have consistently ruled on this issue.
Again which is why I coded it with only a soft error, let the TO's/opponent's decide if they follow your line of thought then they can ignore the error report. If I wanted to lock it out completely, I would have hard coded the error, and in which case it would have grayed out the option army wide. Let's just let each play/group/tourney follow their own moral compass in this matter.

On soap box note: GW prides itself on some of the best model range IMHO, however they epic fail when it comes to clear rules and FAQ support when they rules they write fail. Here are some my list of fails. Do Lizardmen S. Warriors get predatory attack from second rank. BRB would say no, but army book unclear. Dwarfs, Can you stack a second rune of burning which provides no additional effect to get around pride issues. Or since were on the subject of Wood Elves, do Wild rider mounts have frenzy?

And if you say "ETC rules this or that", ETC is one example of a gaming body which again IMHO does a very good job, but they are not GW.
EdSteiner is offline   #24 Reply With Quote
sdhakala
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 27

Old June 12th, 2014, 03:19 PM
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.

Last edited by sdhakala; June 12th, 2014 at 03:21 PM.
sdhakala is offline   #25 Reply With Quote
EdSteiner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 722

Old June 12th, 2014, 05:23 PM
With regard to DoC, that is because those are default equipment choices. Not an upgrade option, and trust me I read pages of Wood Elf forum debate on the subject, and came to the conclusion to soft code the error and let each group view it as they wish. But again a group cannot make what is a GW product be official in any stretch, even something to most as obvious as this error. I mean how hard would it be for GW to say you can/you cannot. Also true play testing of rule by these accredited gaming bodies I am sure would have found and clarified these exact issues prior to press time. But again a GW fail.

In fact I just reviewed my email log, I had a member of the wood elf forums which did this very discussion use the same terms and cites you did, but at the end of the day could not black and white say which was right.
EdSteiner is offline   #26 Reply With Quote
Ancelica
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 32

Old June 21st, 2014, 04:23 AM
Hi there,

Great Weapon option for Glade Captain should be 4 points, not 6.

Cheers,
A
Ancelica is offline   #27 Reply With Quote
EdSteiner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 722

Old June 21st, 2014, 05:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancelica View Post
Hi there,

Great Weapon option for Glade Captain should be 4 points, not 6.

Cheers,
A
Corrected for 2.76
EdSteiner is offline   #28 Reply With Quote
Ancelica
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 32

Old June 25th, 2014, 06:15 AM
Great Stag is str 5 not 4.

A
Ancelica is offline   #29 Reply With Quote
EdSteiner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 722

Old June 25th, 2014, 08:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancelica View Post
Great Stag is str 5 not 4.

A
Corrected for 2.76
EdSteiner is offline   #30 Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
wolflair.com copyright ©1998-2016 Lone Wolf Development, Inc. View our Privacy Policy here.