Sphynx
Well-known member
I just wanted to report a seeming bug I've discovered in the Warhammer Fantasy Army Builder. I was trying to make a Dark Elf BeastMaster with the Armour of Darkness and noticed that I couldn't do that in the ArmyBuilder. After thoroughly investigating (he doesn't have a 2-handed weapon, doesn't have 2 weapons, doesn't have anything that would prevent him from having the armour/shield, that it's within the cost point allowance), I noticed he also couldn't have the Enchanted Shield.
I realize that the character model doesn't have a shield listed in his non-magical equipment list, however, I can not find any sort of ruling in the books that would support an assumption that he couldn't have a magical shield. It seems that the Army Builder program prevents anyone who doesn't have a shield listed in their non-magical equipment list to have any magical shield or armour that contains a shield within.
Considering the program is not intended as an enforcement of either House Rules or House Interpretations, it seems to me that it is a bug, a hopefully unintended bug, that should be fixed. If it was not unintentional, and simply an interpretation by someone who believes the rule should exist, I think it's a bug that should be reviewed. If I'm entirely wrong, I look forward to an actual page reference that states in a non-multi-interpretable manner where this rule comes from, please.
Sphynx
I realize that the character model doesn't have a shield listed in his non-magical equipment list, however, I can not find any sort of ruling in the books that would support an assumption that he couldn't have a magical shield. It seems that the Army Builder program prevents anyone who doesn't have a shield listed in their non-magical equipment list to have any magical shield or armour that contains a shield within.
Considering the program is not intended as an enforcement of either House Rules or House Interpretations, it seems to me that it is a bug, a hopefully unintended bug, that should be fixed. If it was not unintentional, and simply an interpretation by someone who believes the rule should exist, I think it's a bug that should be reviewed. If I'm entirely wrong, I look forward to an actual page reference that states in a non-multi-interpretable manner where this rule comes from, please.
Sphynx