Wood Elves: Duplication of enchanted arrows

[MangoPunch]

Sadly, according to people who actually own the book, RAW is clearly not allowing duplicates.

Not like it affects me anyway since mixing arrows is far superior to focusing on one upgrade.

Not having or having read the pertinent rules - how would it effect characters taking the upgrade? Could they upgrade a character and unit, but then be forced to deploy the character in the unit, or is it one or the other?

[Dalamar]

So which part, in your opinion, invalidates the rule that you can only have one copy of a magic item per army?

Enchanted arrows being a type of enchanted item which are magic items.

It would make the character have the only arrow of the kind (giving characters any arrow other than star/moonfire is a waste though)

[Clockwork]

And here I was hoping that we would avoid the great RAW-lawyers vs RAI-righteous conflict...

[Dyvim tvar]

And here I was hoping that we would avoid the great RAW-lawyers vs RAI-righteous conflict...

This always happens. It's crazy to me since there really is no way to determine "intent" unless the designer comes out and says either "I meant what it says" or "oops".

[Searinox Nagharha]

actually... i wouldn't know. From one side if its just mentioned as a unit upgrade then you should be able to give multiple units the same arrow upgrade. yet from the other side i could see that getting extremely powerful very fast. I mean the few tournaments i have been in where dominated with Heavy Armour. so i could see the -3AP arrows beeing very popular on multiple units.

hard to believe that with every book they bring out that within a week people find something that just needs a clarification asap xD

[Gidean]

actually... i wouldn't know. From one side if its just mentioned as a unit upgrade then you should be able to give multiple units the same arrow upgrade. yet from the other side i could see that getting extremely powerful very fast. I mean the few tournaments i have been in where dominated with Heavy Armour. so i could see the -3AP arrows beeing very popular on multiple units.

hard to believe that with every book they bring out that within a week people find something that just needs a clarification asap xD

Mat Ward is a poor writer. Cruddace for all his faults seems to express himself more clearly. The only debate I recall from the Warriors of Chaos Book was whether Soul Feeder got to count wounds from breath weapons used in combat and thunder stomps. About two days before the release of the Wood Elf book I said that we could count on it needing an instant FAQ and that it would break lore to the point our eyes bled. I think I was right.

[Haagrum]

I can see a possible parallel between Wood Elf arrows and the Daemonic Gifts section of the Daemons of Chaos book.

Daemons don't buy magic items, but get rolls on a series of tables instead. The FAQ for this book is currently down (thanks, GW!), but the book states (amongst other things) that "Each gift can only be taken once per model; re-roll and duplicate results for a single model until a different gift is rolled." It also states that "Daemonic Gifts otherwise follow the rules for magic items (specifically, Enchanted Items, unless otherwise stated) with the exception that a Daemon can carry more than one item of each type."

By inference, this suggests the following:

1. Multiple Daemons can have multiple copies of the same Gift (but not the same magic weapons, if they use the default options). Sure, you have to randomly roll those gifts, but the specific prohibition on the same model having multiples of the same gift would be unnecessary if there could be no duplication of gifts because they were Enchanted Items.

2. The absence of a specific limitation should not be interpreted to mean it's open season on multiples of the same type of arcane arrow. However, I understand (possibly wrongly - someone please correct me if this is not the case) that the Wood Elf book specifically limits units to one sort of arrow each, while also noting that bearers of such arrows are not prevented from carrying another Enchanted Item. If this is the case, and the arrows are to be treated as Enchanted Items, what could possibly be the point of such a limitation followed by such a statement? It would be wholly unnecessary.

It follows from this that we cannot consistently apply the same principles to these arrows as we would for an Enchanted Item in the back of the BRB or in an army book. If the purpose of calling these arrows Enchanted Items was to limit their duplication across an army, and having imposed one specific limitation, why would the author not simply state that each type of arcane arrows may only be taken by one unit in an army? In that respect, the analogy with the Daemonic Gifts has some merit.

3. Matt Ward likes doing things like this to players.

That said, I can understand objections to this line of thinking. I agree that my reasoning falters if there is no specific prohibition or edict in the Wood Elf book limiting a given unit to a single type of enchanted arrows. I also agree that taking a spread of arrows across an army is a better gaming choice than stacking your list with Hagbane, Trueflight or Arcane Bodkins, unless you're tailoring against a known enemy list. I even think that the +1 to Wound Order/Destruction flaming arrows will see use, though the latter will be more useful since more Order units are fire-resistant and more Destruction units have Regenerate.

[Dragon9]

Sadly, according to people who actually own the book, RAW is clearly not allowing duplicates.

I own the book, and I strongly disagree with the limitation.

[Haagrum]

Sadly, according to people who actually own the book, RAW is clearly not allowing duplicates.

I own the book, and I strongly disagree with the limitation.

That being the case, what *exactly* does the book have to say about the distribution of arcane arrows (for want of a better collective term)? What is the basis for your objection to the perceived limitation that others are advocating?

hard to believe that with every book they bring out that within a week people find something that just needs a clarification asap xD

It's just the Law of Unintended Consequences at work.

That, and the tendency of players to read in ambiguity where it favours them or allows/is perceived to allow rules to be exploited for massive damage.

[Dyvim tvar]

That, and the tendency of players to read in ambiguity where it favours them or allows/is perceived to allow rules to be exploited for massive damage.

Yes.

[Dragon9]

Sadly, according to people who actually own the book, RAW is clearly not allowing duplicates.

I own the book, and I strongly disagree with the limitation.

That being the case, what *exactly* does the book have to say about the distribution of arcane arrows (for want of a better collective term)? What is the basis for your objection to the perceived limitation that others are advocating?

Callisson already posted the text. It's illogical to me that we're told they don't operate like other magic items, they're listed in the armory section (not the magic item section), they're not an extra piece of gear rather they ch age the profile of the Asrai Longbow, and they are listed as unit upgrades in the list entries and we are to assume that there's a restriction on only one arrow type in the army? The big ones for me is that they're shown as unit upgrades no different from selecting shields for a unit or a mount for a character, and showing in the armory and not the magic item list.

[Dalamar]

Magic items are also listed as unit/character upgrades. The difference is you are referenced to the full list since reprinting all magic items for all characters in each list entry would make books have twice the pages.

[Dyvim tvar]

Callisson already posted the text. It's illogical to me that we're told they don't operate like other magic items, they're listed in the armory section (not the magic item section), they're not an extra piece of gear rather they ch age the profile of the Asrai Longbow, and they are listed as unit upgrades in the list entries and we are to assume that there's a restriction on only one arrow type in the army? The big ones for me is that they're shown as unit upgrades no different from selecting shields for a unit or a mount for a character, and showing in the armory and not the magic item list.

How does any of this take precedence over the fact that they are described as Enchanted Items?

If we ignore the rule against duplication, what significance is there at all to the fact that they are described as Enchanted Items?

I refuse to assume that the designation of the Arrows as Enchanted Items is a meaningless designation.

[Dragon9]

Magic item upgrades are listed as "May take magic items totaling X" or "May take a magic banner up to X points" not "May take one of the following". And if they were to be treated like every other magic item, they'd be in the magic item list, not the armory (i.e, mundane equipment that everyone with access can take). The armory section that says: "...weapons and upgrades available to the units and characters of the Wood Elf army." Emphasis on the plurals. Vs. being in the magic item section that says: "These can be taken in addition to the magic items listed in the Warhammer rule book." The fact that they're "magic items" that can be taken by anything other than characters should be the first clue that these do not work like any old magic item.

Enchanted Arrows are added to the magic items and should not be treated with the same restrictions. And yes, the enchanted item designation is meaningless. It's a ham handed way of designating them as being magical attacks by saying "they're items! They're magical!" Completely superfluous. This just another one of those situations that once the FAQ entry is released for it I know that I'll be vindicated.

[Dyvim tvar]

And yes, the enchanted item designation is meaningless. It's a ham handed way of designating them as being magical attacks by saying "they're items! They're magical!" Completely superfluous.

And here's the problem. You are deciding to ignore a written rule in order to reach your conclusion. None of the stuff you mention in support of your argument is an actual written rule--you are just drawing inferences which may or may not be correct. The one thing that has defined effects you decide to ignore. I can't work that way.

As a side note, I find it very interesting that so many people are willing to ignore written rules to benefit the Wood Elves and not in other situations. With Lizardmen, although most strongly suspect that the book author screwed up Predatory Fighter, they say "too bad," one rank only.

[Calisson]

The rule discussion is easily summarized:
BRB p.500: "Magical items are considered to be unique - you can only have one of each in your army unless otherwise stated in the magic item's rules."
WE AB: "The entire unit may take one of the following types of enchanted arrows"
It overrides BRB for a single unit. I've not seen any rules argument supporting duplication on several units.

-=-=-
Now, there were other arguments made, which are often not valid rules arguments:

(my [Calisson] comments, to each argument)

It's illogical to me
=> rules do not follow necessarily logics

that we're told they don't operate like other magic items,
=> several differences are actually mentioned indeed; but it does not allow us to extrapolate that there are other differences with regular magic objects than what is explicitely written.

they're listed in the armory section (not the magic item section),
=> nothing different from a magic item linked with a special character such as Shadowblade potion of S, so it proves nothing

they're not an extra piece of gear rather they change the profile of the Asrai Longbow,
=> how can you say that? please explain how this is different from, let's say, potion of S?

and they are listed as unit upgrades in the list entries
=> most lords have 100pts of magic object unit upgrade, most heroes have 50pts, some champs and pennant bearers have some magic object unit upgrade too.

and we are to assume that there's a restriction on only one arrow type in the army?
=> BRB p.500: "Magical items are considered to be unique - you can only have one of each in your army unless otherwise stated in the magic item's rules."
Here, the magic item's rules are:
"The entire unit may take one of the following types of enchanted arrows"

The big ones for me is that they're shown as unit upgrades no different from selecting shields for a unit or a mount for a character,
=> no different from magic item upgrade for champions, pennant bearers, heroes and lords

and showing in the armory and not the magic item list.
=> no different from magic items provided to most special characters.

I refuse to assume that the designation of the Arrows as Enchanted Items is a meaningless designation.
=> It's not meaningless as it makes the arrow hits "magical", unless I'm mistaken.

Magic item upgrades are listed as "May take magic items totaling X" or "May take a magic banner up to X points" not "May take one of the following".
=> where does that allow to duplicate enchanted items?

And if they were to be treated like every other magic item, they'd be in the magic item list, not the armory (i.e, mundane equipment that everyone with access can take).
=> this "argument" is not a rule at all! Many magic items are not in the magic item list, such as the ones owned by special characters.

The armory section that says: "...weapons and upgrades available to the units and characters of the Wood Elf army." Emphasis on the plurals.
=> The fact that they are available to several units does not mean that they are available to several units simultaneously, overriding the rule BRB p.500.

Vs. being in the magic item section that says: "These can be taken in addition to the magic items listed in the Warhammer rule book." The fact that they're "magic items" that can be taken by anything other than characters
=> Anything???
should be the first clue that these do not work like any old magic item.
=> We're not discussing clues, we're discussing actual rules.
Nobody disputes that enchanted arrows are not like other magic items. What is discussed is whether they also trump the rule p.500 about non-duplication, beyond duplication within a single unit which is explicit.

Enchanted Arrows are added to the magic items and should not be treated with the same restrictions.
=> Why not? Only the restrictions that are explicitely lifted are lifted. The restrictions which are not explicitely lifted are not lifted.

And yes, the enchanted item designation is meaningless. It's a ham handed way of designating them as being magical attacks by saying "they're items! They're magical!" Completely superfluous.
=> Words are not meaningless. As soon as it is written "Enchanted item", it means:
BRB p.505 "...wonderful artefact too unique or specific to be included in another category. They are often amongst the most prized magical items to possess."
in addition to all rules p.500, unless explicitely overridden by the item description.

This just another one of those situations that once the FAQ entry is released for it I know that I'll be vindicated.
=> We must find a way to play without waiting for an FAQ, don't we?

[Clockwork]

As a side note, I find it very interesting that so many people are willing to ignore written rules to benefit the Wood Elves and not in other situations. With Lizardmen, although most strongly suspect that the book author screwed up Predatory Fighter, they say "too bad," one rank only.

That's probably out of sympathy for the years of hardship that Wood Elves have had to enjoy, and a complete disregard for the feelings of Lizardmen players after years of Skink cloud abuse

[Dalamar]

I want cauldron of blood crew to have Ld8... its current statline is obviously an oversight/typo.

[Dyvim tvar]

I want cauldron of blood crew to have Ld8... its current statline is obviously an oversight/typo.

Exactly.

If Wood Elves get to ignore the rules so do I.

I'm going to start doing Predatory Fighter for my rear ranks when playing my Lizards too.

[Gidean]

I want cauldron of blood crew to have Ld8... its current statline is obviously an oversight/typo.

Exactly.

If Wood Elves get to ignore the rules so do I.

I'm going to start doing Predatory Fighter for my rear ranks when playing my Lizards too.

And we need to limit WoC players to only ONE unit of Skullcrushers/Knights using ensorcelled weapons since they are magic weapons. This will help my Vampire Counts army. The Ethereals will be safe. This will help my Dark Elves since they'll only be striking me at str 4 if they are charged.

[Clockwork]

And we need to limit WoC players to only ONE unit of Skullcrushers/Knights using ensorcelled weapons since they are magic weapons.

No, they aren't:

Attacks made with ensorcelled weapons are resolved at +1 Strength. In addition, these are magical attacks.

In other words they are weapons that are magical but not Magic Weapons (just uncapitalised magic weapons). Nowhere does it specifically describe them as such, unlike the arrows being Enchanted Items.

[Dalamar]

See, if arrows said something like this, and never touched the term "enchanted item" there would be absolutely no issue.
But being an enchanted item carries with it a whole lot of other rules... like can't be present in an army more than once unless specifically given an exception.

[Gidean]

See, if arrows said something like this, and never touched the term "enchanted item" there would be absolutely no issue.
But being an enchanted item carries with it a whole lot of other rules... like can't be present in an army more than once unless specifically given an exception.

Then explain to me how a Wood Elf Character can take the special arrows and STILL have another enchanted item from the books.

As a side note, I find it very interesting that so many people are willing to ignore written rules to benefit the Wood Elves and not in other situations. With Lizardmen, although most strongly suspect that the book author screwed up Predatory Fighter, they say "too bad," one rank only.

That's probably out of sympathy for the years of hardship that Wood Elves have had to enjoy, and a complete disregard for the feelings of Lizardmen players after years of Skink cloud abuse

Sadly Vetock left them the ability to continue the skink cloud abuse.

Wow...with the casting of my vote the poll is 17-3 that they are allowed to take the same arrow type multiple times. Good to know there are so many reasonable people reading the forums.

[Clockwork]

See, if arrows said something like this, and never touched the term "enchanted item" there would be absolutely no issue.
But being an enchanted item carries with it a whole lot of other rules... like can't be present in an army more than once unless specifically given an exception.

Then explain to me how a Wood Elf Character can take the special arrows and STILL have another enchanted item from the books.

Err, because he has a specific exemption?

Edit: I haven't actually voted because I don't care one way or the other as far as friendly games go, and I'll just play whatever the TO decides at an event.

[Dalamar]

Then explain to me how a Wood Elf Character can take the special arrows and STILL have another enchanted item from the books.

Oh this is so easy. Enchanted arrows actually have in their rules that they can be taken in addition to another enchanted item.

As for the poll, it really doesn't matter how people play in their clubs, personally I don't care if my opponent weakens his list by spamming one type of arrow (please please arcane bodkins) but rules are rules and allowing multiple units to take the same arrow is, let's call it by the proper name, a house rule.