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: 733

Old March 15th, 2014, 11:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghstgry View Post
Not to be critical...

- Rune of Warding costs are 15/35/45, but when you choose them, the app calculates them at 10/50/125.
- Missing several Banner Runes when applying a magic standard to a Longbeard unit:
  • Master Rune of Groth One-Eye
  • Master Rune of Stromni Redbeard
  • Master Rune of Valaya
  • Master Rune of Grungni
  • Rune of Stoicism
- Regular Slayers are no longer "Troll Slayers", but are just standard vanilla "Slayers"
Rune of Warding fixed for 2.73
  • Master Rune of Groth One-Eye
  • Master Rune of Stromni Redbeard
  • Master Rune of Valaya
  • Master Rune of Grungni

All of these runes are over 50 points so Longbeards cannot take them.

Rune of Stoicism

Fixed for 2.73

I like them as Troll Slayers but ok, back to normal slayers it is

Fixed for 2.73
EdSteiner is offline   #51 Reply With Quote
ghstgry
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 34

Old March 15th, 2014, 12:21 PM
[QUOTE=Ullr;177752]
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdSteiner View Post
See replies

Make him the army general and the you need to then go to the Slayer unit and select Slayer King upgrade to make the slayer 100 runic banner show. And it only should allow for runic banner, not Banner of Lost Holds which is an heirloom, not runic standard. I need to remove it, as I also read it as they can take Banner of lost holds however on further review they cannot.
Fixed for 2.73

QUOTE]

So then by all accounts the BSB can not have the banner of the Lost Holds.
You folks are being too literal.

By literal interpretation, the Slayer King rule "...a single Slayer unit may take a runic standard worth up to 100 points" would mean they can't take the banner. And the BSB rule: "The Battle Standard Bearer can have a runic standard (no points limit)." The BoLH is listed as a "Magic Standard", thus, literally, the BSB can't take it either.

At 100 pts, the only units that could actually take it are the BSB (no pt limit on the Battle Standard) or the Slayer SB with Ungrim. That said, why would GW place such an item in the book if no one can use it?

I'd also like to refer you to pg 59 in the book under "Runic Magic":
"It is important to remember that an Ancestral Heirloom or runic item is no different from a magic item, and all the usual rules for magic items still apply."

So to my eye, that means that "runic" and "magic" are synonymous.
ghstgry is offline   #52 Reply With Quote
ghstgry
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 34

Old March 15th, 2014, 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdSteiner View Post
All of these runes are over 50 points so Longbeards cannot take them.
Not to be nit-picky, but I can choose multiple combinations of runes with the current build that push me over 50 pts. So if you're not even showing options that we can't use, then you'll need to hide the 3x RoSlowness and the 2x and 3x RoBattle as well. Not to mention hiding other runes as the point totals climb...you're climbing down a slippery slope, my friends.

It's probably easiest for you to just show all available runes and let the software prevent illegal combinations via point validation. To be honest, while I appreciate that you're trying not to give us options we can't use, I think it's better to show *all* options so that we don't sit and scratch our heads thinking, "Hmm...I could've SWORN I could take X rune on that item." Better to allow it as an option and have the validation rules permit or deny it.

Also, the Ironbreakers/Irondrakes suffer from the same problem.

Quote:
I like them as Troll Slayers but ok, back to normal slayers it is
I absolutely agree, but I figured other folks not as familiar with Dwarfs might get confused when the book doesn't match the software.

Last edited by ghstgry; March 15th, 2014 at 12:32 PM.
ghstgry is offline   #53 Reply With Quote
EdSteiner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 733

Old March 15th, 2014, 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghstgry View Post
Not to be nit-picky, but I can choose multiple combinations of runes with the current build that push me over 50 pts. So if you're not even showing options that we can't use, then you'll need to hide the 3x RoSlowness and the 2x and 3x RoBattle as well. Not to mention hiding other runes as the point totals climb...you're climbing down a slippery slope, my friends.

It's probably easiest for you to just show all available runes and let the software prevent illegal combinations via point validation. To be honest, while I appreciate that you're trying not to give us options we can't use, I think it's better to show *all* options so that we don't sit and scratch our heads thinking, "Hmm...I could've SWORN I could take X rune on that item." Better to allow it as an option and have the validation rules permit or deny it.

Also, the Ironbreakers/Irondrakes suffer from the same problem.



I absolutely agree, but I figured other folks not as familiar with Dwarfs might get confused when the book doesn't match the software.

With regards to runes on units. It is easier to remove them from being shown then created a rule to enforce validation. Has to do with the ab creator interface.

However lets face it GW does very poor wording. Example under lord, rune lord/smith, n thane it is combination of runic items n heirloom stuff. If using your logic, why can my dragon slayer not take the heirloom weapon, it's a weapon after all n I can take a runic weapon. Because under dragon slayer entry it says may take runic weapon of 75 points.
EdSteiner is offline   #54 Reply With Quote
Ullr
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6

Old March 15th, 2014, 02:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdSteiner View Post
With regards to runes on units. It is easier to remove them from being shown then created a rule to enforce validation. Has to do with the ab creator interface.

However lets face it GW does very poor wording. Example under lord, rune lord/smith, n thane it is combination of runic items n heirloom stuff. If using your logic, why can my dragon slayer not take the heirloom weapon, it's a weapon after all n I can take a runic weapon. Because under dragon slayer entry it says may take runic weapon of 75 points.
I have to agree, I feel that the BSB and the Ungrim Slayer unit can have the Banner of the Lost Holds. I also feel that Dragon Slayer should be allowed to have heirloom weapons (slayer with the red axe would be awesome), but RAW and as you have said, it is a magic item, and while runic items count as magical, there is still a difference. I feel it should be RAI that heirlooms can be taken too, but we have to wait for GW's FAQ.
Ullr is offline   #55 Reply With Quote
ghstgry
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 34

Old March 15th, 2014, 02:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ullr View Post
I have to agree, I feel that the BSB and the Ungrim Slayer unit can have the Banner of the Lost Holds. I also feel that Dragon Slayer should be allowed to have heirloom weapons (slayer with the red axe would be awesome), but RAW and as you have said, it is a magic item, and while runic items count as magical, there is still a difference. I feel it should be RAI that heirlooms can be taken too, but we have to wait for GW's FAQ.
Again, we're being too literal. The entire second paragraph on pg 59 under Runic Magic spells it out about as clearly as you can. From the Dwarf's perspective, Runic items = magic items. Magic items = runic items.

Looking at the fluff for the magic weapons reinforces this even further:

The Hammer of Karak Drazh
"...It was struck with runes so that..."

Red Axe of Karak Eight Peaks
"...Struck with unique runes of vengeance..."

Magnificent Armor of Borek Beetlebrow
"...Who knows what runes were struck upon that gromril suit..."

etc.

Seems pretty clear to me that runic = magic = runic.
ghstgry is offline   #56 Reply With Quote
Ullr
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6

Old March 15th, 2014, 05:26 PM
So why not just have them under the runes and call them "Runic Heirlooms" and why would things like Lord/Thanes/Runelords/simiths say that they can have runic AND heirloom items? I understand AND agree that they are allowed to be used. You must not know the people I know, because I know people who WILL say my list is illegal if I try to use them. Different people will see things differently.

RAI make more sense with the heirlooms, then RAW, but right now RAW is all we have. It isn't being too literal, it is reading the rules as they are written and only really having that to go by. I will guaranty that GW will FAQ them to be allowed and make it so people that I know will have to accept it.
Ullr is offline   #57 Reply With Quote
ghstgry
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 34

Old March 15th, 2014, 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ullr View Post
So why not just have them under the runes and call them "Runic Heirlooms" and why would things like Lord/Thanes/Runelords/smiths say that they can have runic AND heirloom items?
Read the BSB rules. They state that if the BSB carries a runic (magic) banner, he/she cannot use any other runic OR Heirloom items.

Thus, the rules stating that the character can take "a combination of Ancestral Heirlooms and runic weapons, armour and talismans" is simply for clarification. That way, there's no argument as to whether I can wield the Red Axe AND 3x Runes of Warding if I want.

And if people are going to be that anal about the wording of rules, then I'd just as soon not be playing them, as they'll find any number of other things to bellyache about besides my magic items.
ghstgry is offline   #58 Reply With Quote
Ullr
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6

Old March 15th, 2014, 06:18 PM
If there weren't 10 players in my area, I wouldn't play them, but they are all that way. Just look at the Brets Wyrm Lance: gives the model a Breath Weapon, but it actually states that it can't be used in combat in the item description, so it can't be used that way and GW hasn't FAQed it otherwise. Yes Runic Items are magical in nature and thusly classified as magic, but the AB does specify between both runic items and heirlooms. RAW the Banner of Lost Holds is a Heirloom item and not a runic item, yes it has runes on it, but it isn't class as runic, and actually classified as a magical item. basically we agree to disagree, and that is that.

Sorry this is off topic.....
Ullr is offline   #59 Reply With Quote
EdSteiner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 733

Old March 15th, 2014, 10:51 PM
Then why did the author make a clear example of Lord/Runelord/Runesmith/Thane and use very clear wording "May take a combination of any Ancestral Heirlooms, runic weapons, armour, talismans of up to point value x.

And then just as clearly on Daemon slayer, dragon slayer, master engineer say either may take runic weapon, for the slayers or may take runic weapons, armour, talismans in the case of the engineer. If we are to then say well its a magic weapon under heirlooms my slayer should be able to take it. Piss poor wording on GW's part.

With regards to the Banner of Lost Holds. RAW very strictly followed would restrict the banner from the BSB as its not a runic banner, I choose to make one RAI in that one issue because clearly a Thane via his magic rules can have access to Ancestral Heirloom, and again while it does not state under BSB subsection make take A.H. I, as the file author made a honest evaluation of the rules. When it was brought about the fact several users not seeing the Slayer King rule is in place in this file version. Reason, you must meet several roster requirements for it to be valid and again I as the coder, took time to limit what is valid so even user error, and a poor opponent's who fail to check.
EdSteiner is offline   #60 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 06:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
wolflair.com copyright ©1998-2016 Lone Wolf Development, Inc. View our Privacy Policy here.