Lone Wolf Development Forums  

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

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
ghstgry
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 34

Old March 16th, 2014, 10:02 AM
First off, I greatly respect and appreciate the time and effort you and your associates put into making the ArmyBuilder data files for us. I don't argue to be a pain in the ass or to prove superiority. I do so in the hopes of making the files and the game as accurate as possible for everyone else using them. That way we can avoid problems for folks like Ullr and his opponents.

I think I now understand the confusion here, and the logic that the army book author used when writing things as he did. I believe Ed and I are on the same page here, but let me explain my thoughts and we'll compare.

Ancestral Heirlooms are unique, highly revered items passed down for millennia. As such, these items are (and should be) likely possessed solely by the aristocracy of the Dwarf people. Hence, when the army list entry for Lords/Thanes/Runelords/Runesmiths says, "May take a combination of Ancestral Heirlooms and runic weapons, armour and talismans...", it inherently implies how special the Heirlooms are. Lords and Thanes are clan rulers, and the Runemasters are held in VERY high regard by Dwarf society in general. As such, they've earned the right to carry such precious artifacts of the Dwarf people.

Now compare that to the Slayer characters, who are limited to "runic weapons". Given that a Slayer's entire purpose of going into battle is to die a glorious death, I sincerely doubt that the Dwarf aristocracy would consent to letting a precious Heirloom item enter the battlefield knowing that its wielder is most likely going to die in solo combat. So in that regard, I can understand why the "Heirloom" has been omitted from their entries. The runic items available to champion-class Dwarfs, while being primarily restricted by points available, would also not be "allowed" to carry such precious items into combat, as they don't have the pedigree to have earned such an honor.

So then yes, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that only Lords/Heroes which explicitly list the availability of Heirlooms can carry them. Otherwise, no, they can't.

Regarding the BoLH, I believe that only the BSB should be able to carry it, as a Slayer unit would not likely be granted such a boon. As Ed points out, it's poor wording on GW's part to not include Heirlooms in the description of the BSB. However, given that the BSB can only be a Thane, then through the rules for the character himself he should be allowed to carry the BoLH. So it's really a simple extension of logic that would allow it to happen.
ghstgry is offline   #61 Reply With Quote
EdSteiner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 729

Old March 16th, 2014, 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghstgry View Post
I think I now understand the confusion here, and the logic that the army book author used when writing things as he did. I believe Ed and I are on the same page here, but let me explain my thoughts and we'll compare.
I concur with entire viewpoint.

I think the next major issue is the 'faction' that feel "I can place a Rune of Forging and a Rune of Burning on a cannon, and then place a Rune of Forging and Runes of Burning (x2) on a second cannon" to get around the pride issue. And again GW poor writing say Rune of fire. Blah Blah........Flaming attacks multiples of this rune have no further effect, which one side reads as well I can take more then one, even though it provide no effect. And other that feel well if it has no further effect then you cannot take more then one. I choose to code it along the strict reading of if it has no further effect you cannot take it again beyond it value.

Even worse is this.

A unit with a runic standard with Rune of Slowness IE. '-D6" charge distance' and say my BSB who is in the unit has runic standard with Rune "x" and Rune "y" and also Rune of Slowness. Now if I charge that unit do I roll a -D6" for the unit banner and -D6" from the BSB banner. Now then that is 2D6" off my charge distance, where as if you have Rune of Slowness (x2) it is roll 2D6 and use the highest value as the "x" value to subtract from charge distance. GW has had several issues with failing to identify which modifiers can stack and which cannot.
EdSteiner is offline   #62 Reply With Quote
ghstgry
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 34

Old March 16th, 2014, 01:14 PM
Hmm...I hadn't thought along those lines. But then, I'm not a "dick-you-over" kinda player either.

My $0.02 is that if the rules state that "multiples of this rune have no further effect", then you should be allowed to take additional runes. After all, if you couldn't take multiples, then why would they explicitly mention that situation? On the other hand, "have no further effect" could also be interpreted as not affecting ANYthing, be it granting special rules to the weapon, or affecting the Rule of Pride either.

Unfortunately, I'd vote to allow for multiples of a rune, at the same cost, which would indeed get around Rule of Pride. I don't like it, and I don't agree with it, but given the way the rules are written, it's hard to argue otherwise. This is also given the fact that other runes, such as Rune of the Furnace, doesn't mention anything about multiples. So I would argue that those that do mention it can be duplicated, and those that don't, can't.

As to RoSlowness, I'd rule that only one of the runes takes effect. That's because the RoSlowness states: "Any foes charging a unit including a standard bearing a Rune of Slowness...". So you could have 50 of them in the unit, but it's irrelevant; you're still charging A unit containing A standard bearing the rune.

As to whether their effects would stack, i.e., roll 2d6 and take the highest, I'd say yes. First, because RAW state "A second Rune of Slowness means...", versus the RoSanctuary which states "A standard bearing two Runes of Sanctuary...". So apparently the presence of multiple runes would stack, though I'm sure it's not the intent. However, if you're going to do that, you're essentially paying 70 points for the effects of a 50 rune stack that you'll probably only use once or twice in a game. If you want to do that, knock yourself out.
ghstgry is offline   #63 Reply With Quote
captain5thva
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2

Old March 16th, 2014, 05:14 PM
I've seen that a lot of the bugs are fixed in ver. 2.73. When will we be able to get this said version. Ty
captain5thva is offline   #64 Reply With Quote
EdSteiner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 729

Old March 17th, 2014, 09:24 AM
Fiery Ring/runic weapon error has been reported and fixed for 2.73
EdSteiner is offline   #65 Reply With Quote
illmatic
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3

Old March 17th, 2014, 02:11 PM
When you select the Silver Horn of Vengeance, your Runic Weapon becomes greyed out. If you select a Runic Weapon and then select the Silver Horn, you get a warning stating "Too many Enchanted Items".

The Silver Horn is an Enchanted Item, and a Runic Weapon is a Magic Weapon.
illmatic is offline   #66 Reply With Quote
illmatic
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3

Old March 17th, 2014, 02:24 PM
When giving a Hammerers unit champion a Runic Weapon, the Rune of Striking is 10 points, but after clicking the check box it becomes 20 points.
illmatic is offline   #67 Reply With Quote
ghstgry
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 34

Old March 17th, 2014, 05:03 PM
In the "Available Units" list, Ironbreakers are listed as "140/#+140" instead of 14/#+140.
ghstgry is offline   #68 Reply With Quote
EdSteiner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 729

Old March 17th, 2014, 05:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by illmatic View Post
When you select the Silver Horn of Vengeance, your Runic Weapon becomes greyed out. If you select a Runic Weapon and then select the Silver Horn, you get a warning stating "Too many Enchanted Items".

The Silver Horn is an Enchanted Item, and a Runic Weapon is a Magic Weapon.
Fixed for 2.73
EdSteiner is offline   #69 Reply With Quote
EdSteiner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 729

Old March 17th, 2014, 05:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghstgry View Post
In the "Available Units" list, Ironbreakers are listed as "140/#+140" instead of 14/#+140.
Fixed for 2.73
EdSteiner is offline   #70 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 08:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
wolflair.com copyright ©1998-2016 Lone Wolf Development, Inc. View our Privacy Policy here.