Magic Weapons : Descriptions and Rules

[Andrejko]

From the Rulebook

Magic weapons always ignore any special rules that apply to an ordinary weapon of the same type unless otherwise in the description of the weapon

That quote raises some interesting questions when considering the dark elf magic weapons

I saw a thread where someone pointed out the Calders Bane is not described as a lance. Therefore the item could be effectively carried on foot. I presume the writer of this thread is working on the assumption that the “Description” is the bit at the bottom that says

“+3 strength on the charge. Models may not use Scaly Skin…. ”

and is ignoring the use of the word Lance in the “Fluff Description”.

If my interpretation of the English Language is correct then this is actually and extremely shrewd observation and they are technically correct.

If we look at only the bit at the bottom then:-

The Calders Bane is quite clearly not described as a lance.

If we look at the whole ‘Fluff Description”:-

Then the Calders Bane is described as a lance. However it is not described as following the normal rules for a lance (mounted only). This case is particularly controversial because the section special weapon rules does not actually have an entry for “Mounted Only”, it just appears in brackets in the close combat weapons table.

So arguably, whatever way you look at it, my hero on foot can charge with a weapon that is quite clearly a lance.

Now using this logic this is where it gets interesting…….

Lets look at the Soul Render

Fact : It is described as a great weapon.
Therefore : It’s a Great Weapon

Fact : It is not described as having the special rules for a Great Weapon
Therefore : It ignores the other Rules for a Great Weapon

Fact : The special rules for a great weapon are strikes Last, requires 2 hands to use and a strength bonus.
Therefore : These special rules do not apply to the Soul Render

It just doesn’t seem right does it?

I think I am going to use common sense as apposed to following the rulebook to the word.

Anybody else thought about this before?

[Bad beast]

when an Item says "Great weapon." that is the GW language for this weapon counts as a great weapon, and follows it's rules

[Patrizzo]

Indeed!

Hopefully the FAQ or maybe an errata will solve the "problem" with Caledor's Bane, but until that happens you are correct that it is not a lance.

[Silverheimdall]

Ever since, I think, the High Elf book, magic weapons either had their mundane weapon name in the rules part of the weapon (see errata for Caradryan's Halberd too) instead of "this counts as a whatever and follows all its rules"

So..

Lance. This Weapon grants the user Killing Blow.

Will get +2S on the charge while mounted, but still grant Killing Blow (no +2S charge bonus) if the wielder falls to his feet if he lost his monstrous mount.

And ever since the Daemon book, we have Magic Weapons that are also Hand Weapons, thus they gain the Parry Bonus when on foot and using a shield and an extra attack when used with a second hand weapon.

Whip of Agony is a Beastmaster's Scourge which is also a Hand Weapon. So Whip of Agony + Enchanted Shield + Heavy Armor and a SDC is 1+ armor save to the front arc in close combat.

And then there are oddball stuff:
Executioner's Axe - Strikes Last, Requires 2 Hands, but it isn't counted as a Great Weapon so if Vaul's Unmaking or anything else that breaks magic weapons, were to break the Axe, then it becomes a mundane hand weapon and loses its 2Hand+Strike Lasts rules as well.

[Milney]

And ever since the Daemon book, we have Magic Weapons that are also Hand Weapons, thus they gain the Parry Bonus when on foot and using a shield and an extra attack when used with a second hand weapon.

Whip of Agony is a Beastmaster's Scourge which is also a Hand Weapon. So Whip of Agony + Enchanted Shield + Heavy Armor and a SDC is 1+ armor save to the front arc in close combat.

Nope. Hand Weapons with magical properties cannot be combined with shield/AHWs for thier mundane hand weapon bonii. Covered explicitly in the BRB errata/FAQ.

You can however combine a mundane hand weapon with a magical shield and recieve the parry bonus (as the parry bonus is a rule of the hand weapon, not a shield).

Edit: Just for clarity, the Daemon Errata only applies to daemonic gifts, as they do not follow the rules for magic items. All other items need specific rules to allow them to retain thier original rules (such as the Dagger of Hotek, or Hellebron's special rule).

Trying to upload a screen from the FAQ to show you the ruling, but it's not letting me. It's in the GW BRB Errata on the site though.

[Silverheimdall]

The FAQ was done just over 2 years ago and now they started re-introducing Magic Weapons with the very clear rule "Hand Weapon" this is definitely a change in how they do things and thus should be considered when going with the FAQ's ruling.

Since it has "Hand Weapon" in its rules, it follows all the rules for a normal Hand Weapon and the Parry/Extra attack rules apply as well.

[Milney]

The FAQ was done just over 2 years ago and now they started re-introducing Magic Weapons with the very clear rule "Hand Weapon" this is definitely a change in how they do things and thus should be considered when going with the FAQ's ruling.

Since it has "Hand Weapon" in its rules, it follows all the rules for a normal Hand Weapon and the Parry/Extra attack rules apply as well.

No it doesn't. You can't just say "It says hand weapon therefore it is a hand weapon". The rules explicitly state that they lose all of thier additional abilities. Clearly you didn't even bother to read the FAQ either, where it specifically mention MAGICAL HAND WEAPONS.

Willing it to be some other way does not make it so - why do you think our very own Dagger of Hotek and Hellebron have thier own explicit rules? For fun?

Edit: Imageshack has finally decided to work:

[Rork]

Milney, back right down.

You want to start getting nasty with people, you come through me.

[Silverheimdall]

The FAQ was done just over 2 years ago and now they started re-introducing Magic Weapons with the very clear rule "Hand Weapon" this is definitely a change in how they do things and thus should be considered when going with the FAQ's ruling.

Since it has "Hand Weapon" in its rules, it follows all the rules for a normal Hand Weapon and the Parry/Extra attack rules apply as well.

No it doesn't. You can't just say "It says hand weapon therefore it is a hand weapon". The rules explicitly state that they lose all of thier additional abilities. Clearly you didn't even bother to read the FAQ either, where it specifically mention MAGICAL HAND WEAPONS.

Willing it to be some other way does not make it so - why do you think our very own Dagger of Hotek and Hellebron have thier own explicit rules? For fun?

Edit: Imageshack has finally decided to work:

When a magic weapon says "Great Weapon" but not "Strikes Last" "+2S" "Requires both Hands" it still has "Strikes Last" "+2S" and "Requires Both Hands"

So why should it be different for Magical Hand Weapons? (Of which only 5? exist in all the Magic Weapons of any armybook..)

When the weapon type is specified, it follows ALL its rules. When it has no weapon type mentionned, it is a Magic Weapon that follows its own rules and none else.

[Milney]

Milney, back right down.

You want to start getting nasty with people, you come through me.

What did I say that was nasty?

No it doesn't.

A simple statement, explicitly stating an (percieved or not) incorrect statement.

You can't just say "It says hand weapon therefore it is a hand weapon".

Again a simple, concise sentence stating that claiming something to be true, doesn't make it so - especially in the face of "RAW" rulings to the contrary (regardless of date - the rulings WERE 7th Edition). Similar to opponents claiming Skulltakers KB works on all targets in all circumstances - it doesn't say it can't, and by taking the rule out of context it can seem like a valid interpretation.

Nothing aggressive (passive or actively) inherent in that statement either.

The rules explicitly state that they lose all of thier additional abilities. Clearly you didn't even bother to read the FAQ either, where it specifically mention MAGICAL HAND WEAPONS.

Whilst slightly aggressive in tone (and emphasis) it is a valid point (Ref: Attached image in previous post).

Willing it to be some other way does not make it so - why do you think our very own Dagger of Hotek and Hellebron have thier own explicit rules? For fun?

Nothing aggressive there. I refer back to the other statement about Skulltaker's KB rules and other such "wishful thinking" that has graced these forums (and others) over the months. Wanting a rule to be true, does not add any more validity to it, which is a perfectly legitimate comment to make in a rules discussion. Just as one would point out that logical explanations have no place in a fantasy setting.

People need to actually read the content (and context) of posts and threads on internet forums before hitting that "Report" button. Just because when a person *reads* a post in a particular tone [of voice], does not mean that the post was meant (or indeed - as in this case - *written*) in that tone.

I've seen threads in the past months where people have called other people "Idiots" or "Stupid", have used expletives in thier posts and even just stared blindly at the argument and just repeated the line "You're wrong".

Yet, in my posts, I never used the words;

-Idiot
-Stupid
-Wrong
-<insert swear word here>

yet I get brought up for apparently making a personal attack on someone, despite never mentioning a name(s), and taking the time to at least back up my Point-of-View by finding the Errata, cutting it out, and uploading it to share with the forum community.

<sarcasm>I'm sorry I didn't slather my posts with unfelt smilies and horrific amounts of forced "Sorry but I think...", but what this world needs less of is feigned interest and kid gloves. </sarcasm>

No offense, and I realise your role is to "keep the peace" as it were, but if simply stating an alternative interpretation (with citations) is a personal attack then I have to ask how does anyone on this forum actually hold a dialogue or discussion at all?

I was very careful aswell to avoid using in any of my posts "My interpretation" (even in this rebuttal), as it's not my interpretation. I would very much like Magical Hand Weapons to retain the effects of hand weapons, so that we'd see more Sword/Board character combos to drag us away from the horrendous amounts of 2h weapons flying around. However my personal interpretations do not matter, but those that have been interpreted by RAW.

But clearly an open debate over what has (and has not) made it into the current rules is not what this forum is for (strangely, and slightly misleadingly) so clearly I must feign an apology and spam smilies to appease the gods.

Clearly my posts were all wrong and yours are all correct . Discussings rulings is silly mmkay. Bring on the flying Stanks and Chainsaw wielding Skulltakers...

[Silverheimdall]

Eh even RAW is open to your own interpretation. Regardless, all the FAQ has is words about "Magic Weapons".

Its quite clear that ever since at least the High Elf 7th Ed. Book, that Magic Weapons with a prefix such as "Great Weapon" "Lance" "Halberd" and the more recent type of "Hand Weapon" or "Beastmaster's Scourge" now means that all the mundane weapon's rules apply to that Magic Weapon as well.

Caradryan's Halberd (with the FAQ) has gained "Halberd" before its magical rules, thus making it +1S and Two-Handed. Prior to that, even though it was clearly a Halberd in fluff, the rules had no "Halberd." in it and thus it did not grant +1S to Caradryan.

This works the same way for Magic Hand Weapons now.
And honestly, everything is open to each of our interpretations and until GWShop can produce a coherent set of rules then we will have these pointless debates about who's opinion is 'closer to RAW' than the other's opinion.

[Bad beast]

all magic weapons are hand weapons unless otherwise stated, note however, that normally a magic weapon does not benefit from the rules of it's type, IE a Sword of Might is a hand weapon, however you do not gain HW shield bonus from it

however, if a weapon stats that it counts as a "****" (fill in the blank) then it follows the rules of that weapon type as well as any additional rules supplied by the magic weapon, starting with the high elf book onward, GW has shorted this the merely stating the weapon type, and dropping the words "Counts as a...."

what this means is that if a weapon is described as a hand weapon, then it follows all the rules of hand weapons, including, the HW and Shield bonus, otherwise the point of pointing out that a magic weapon is a hand weapon would be redundant as all magic weapons are considered hand weapons unless otherwise stated

[Fr0]

My belief is that the intention is for it to be a lance, and is how I'd play it.. if I did use it, (Deathpiercer would have to be inferior for me use CB) then I would play it as a lance.

..but yes it doesn't say specify like the other magic weapons, however the rules under weapons differ from say, special rules that units have.. once could say that weapons have rules, but not special rules.

[Desert icon]

Wow! Looks like this thread got interesting all of a sudden. Alright, let me take a whack at this!

what this world needs less of is feigned interest and kid gloves.

First thing though, you do remember that this isn't the entire world, this is a forum! And kid gloves are more than appropriate, since I'm pretty sure that there are quite a few young'uns here!

Besides that, generally people don't like it when you talk to them like they are ignorant or don't have any idea what they're talking about (whether you explicitly call them that or not!).

Also, I don't know exactly what you're trying to say by "feigned interest," but I'm pretty sure the people posting here have genuine interest in what's being discussed, otherwise people wouldn't post here (unless it's spam, in which case they have genuine interest in spam).

So yeah, back on topic. If it specifically says "Hand Weapon" in the description, then by all means it should be considered a "Hand Weapon" and should therefore follow all the rules for said type of weapon.

I agree completely with Bad Beast, it would be extremely redundant if they just put "Hand Weapon" in there if they didn't mean it to follow any of those rules!

Why do you think they put it there? For fun?

I do agree, however, with the writing of Caledor's Bane. GW messed up, although I do believe wholeheartedly that they were intending for it to be a lance. I'm positive an FAQ will clear that up.

I'd say it's similar to how the Lore of Fire in the main rulebook has the "Flaming Attacks" rule for the lore in the fluff section at the very top, rather than in a separate section.

People, in my opinion, who follow the rules EXACTLY as they are written word for word without applying common-sense should go apply for law school, there's plenty of people over there they can be agreeable with. Of course, that's just my own opinion, and no offense is meant to anyone who may be a lawyer or, uh, whatnot.

First and foremost this game is meant to be fun, there is no fun to be had if you play the game exactly as written with all of its inherent flaws (unless you're a masochist, a lawyer, or an alien disguised as a human, in which case I'm sorry for offending you).

[Lonewandererd]

Just jumping in to add my two cents, well three actually.

Me and a friend have these problems too and we solve by talking about them beforehand, i.e. do we count it as a lance or a hand weapon without the parry benefits.

I also have three other solutions on the matter until the mess has been solved by a FAQ.

1) Fluff is one of the biggest pieces of the game, it gives it flavour so I'm inclined to follow it. However the fluff can be taken many different ways. Lance does not always refer to the mounted weapon but can refer to any weapon used to "lance" someone e.g. spears, pikes, etc. In the same instance spearmen have also been known to go by the name lancers.

2) The word "dire" can refer to weapon with double blades, etc, such as the dire maces and dire axes from D&D. When i looked it up a Dire Lance can be a long staff like weapon with a blade at either end, think of the weapon that Darth Maul used in the Phantom Menace or the weapon Cao Pi uses in Dynasty Warriors. I think it was Cao Pi, I don't know I don't play the game that much.

3) If the fluff doesn't suit you than change it. Maybe it was once a lance but was broken and remade into a sword. This would allow you to keep its benefits and explian the lack of "Lance" in the rules.

If your still at a loss than just talk it over with your opponent beforehand or ask your local GW, although i prefer the former. Still, thats just my two cents.

[Crawd]

all magic weapons are hand weapons unless otherwise stated,

Nope, all magic weapons are hand weapon, yes but they don't give the "hand weapon" bonus unless specified.

But since Whip of Agony has the rule of "Beastmaster's Scourge" and the Beastmaster's Scourge has the rule of "Hand Weapon", you include the rule of "Hand Weapon" to the Whip of Agony. Unlike most magic weapon, the Whip of Agony specified it's a Beastmaster's Scourge and if you check the Beastmaster's Scourge, it's specified that it's a Hand Weapon, providing all it's bonus.

So, unless someone call me stupid, we can conclude this:

If Whip of Agony contains Beastmaster's Scourge rule;
and Beastmaster's Scourge contains Hand Weapon rules;
so Whip of Agony contains Hand Weapon.

Also, going by some people logic, if you take the ASF dagger, which counts as an additional weapon, you couldn't be able to get the +1A because you wouldn't be able to use the mundane weapon with it...

[Silverheimdall]

all magic weapons are hand weapons unless otherwise stated,

Nope, all magic weapons are hand weapon, yes but they don't give the "hand weapon" bonus unless specified.

He already stated that ;p

Also, going by some people logic, if you take the ASF dagger, which counts as an additional weapon, you couldn't be able to get the +1A because you wouldn't be able to use the mundane weapon with it...

And the Dagger specifically makes an exception for this.

[Fr0]

The dagger's entry states that it can be used in conjunction with a mundane hand weapon, and counts as an additional hand weapon so it will grant you another attack.

If you had a Beastmaster's Scourge, counts as a hand weapon meaning you can, if on foot; take it and DoH, you'll get +1 AsF, AP attack.

[Silverheimdall]

Against certain armies that'd be a good choice, such as T3 with at most 4+ armor on their infantry, you could get a good bunch of kills to add CR and eliminate their few attacks if they charged.