|
Post by knoffles on Jun 23, 2018 5:27:43 GMT
BSB taking the standard: Slayer unit (with Ungrim as general) taking the standard:
- RAW = NO
- RAI = UNCLEAR (best to discuss with your opponent, personally I'd have no problem with my opponent fielding it but I can acknowledge counter-arguments against it)
I think that is a fair summary of it. My final question on this is: Can anyone think of another banner that you can't take on a unit (excluding that the points cost of the banner might exceed the limit the unit can take)? I'm not familiar with all the books but the only thing that I can think of that categorically states bsb only is the banner rune: Master Rune of Grungni.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 23, 2018 8:09:53 GMT
The Griffon Banner of the Empire, which can only be carried by "a character," ergo a BSB. Because of its points value, it can only be taken by a BSB anyway.
If I am allowed a little rant: the Griffon Banner doubles the combat result bonus, but you cannot pursue and must hold your ground.
In the 6th edition, when CC Resolution was far more important, it was standard issue for the Empire. It cost 50 points, and through the Family Heirloom special rule of the Elector Count (the only reason really to take him), a single unit of State troops could carry a Magic Standard up to 50 points - and that was invariably the Griffon Banner.
In the 7th, they had already raised its points to 55. So, in practice, only the BSB could take it. Through the Family Heirloom speciak rule, a single unit of State troops could still carry a Magic Standard up to 50 points - except there was none, and in practice the highest poinst value was 30.
In the 8th edition, where CC Resolution counts for far less, they even raised the points to 60! I do not think anyone has ever taken it in the 8th edition. Compare this to the Banner of the World Dragon for 50 points.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 23, 2018 12:10:05 GMT
On I side note: as an Empire player, I never ever give the BSB a Magic Standard, based on the STO principle. His is a supporting a role, and for that he needs to survive. The stats of our characters are mediocre at best. Therefore, I give him te magic items he needs to survive. Plus: if he is slain, the Magic Standard is lost too - which is not the case for unit standard bearers.
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on Jun 23, 2018 14:02:21 GMT
I can’t remember ever seeing an empire bsb without either the meteoric iron armour or enchanted shield + magic weapon combo
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Jun 24, 2018 1:05:53 GMT
I am afraid not. That is a false equivalence. As I pointed out before: all runic standards are Magic Standards - but not vice versa. The same applies to runic items and Ancestral Heirlooms. All runic items and Ancestral Heirlooms are Magic Items, but not vice versa; and runic items are not Ancestral Heirlooms and vice versa. There are definitely not interchangeable. ---------You are free to disagree. What I'm saying is: that is how I interpret these sentences: "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...All the rules that apply to the possession and use of magic items also apply to runic items." Based on this sentence, I believe that the intent of the author is that all three of these categories are same.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 24, 2018 8:10:51 GMT
For that argument to work, you would have to assume that the author is victim of the same logical fallacy. While that is not entirely impossible in theory, that assumption is proven to be incorrect in practice, because the author himself specifies that Ancient Heirlooms are not runic items.
Dwarfs AB p.3 (Vengeful Throng): This section also includes the Ancient Heirlooms, magical artefacts your characters can use, and Runic Items — unique rules that allow you to customise magic items for use in your games.
Dwarfs AB p. 58: "These items [i.e. Ancient Heirlooms] may be taken in addition to runic items..."
Dwarfs AB p. 59: "In other Warhammer armies, characters may carry magic items from the Warhammer rulebook. This is not the case with Dwarfs, who instead may select Ancestral Heirlooms or runic items."
Indeed, in the full version of the paragraph you quoted, the author gives an example of what he means: "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. For example, a creature with the Ethereal special rule cannot be hurt by attacks thatare not classified as magical — in which case a runic weapon will also be able to affect it. All the rules that apply to the possession and use of magic items also apply to runic items."
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 24, 2018 12:32:41 GMT
Come to think of it: the definition of Ancient Heirlooms on p. 3 also settles the question on whether the Slayers can take the BoLH. AH are specified as magical artefacts that characters can use. This is further supported on p. 58 by "These items may be taken in addition to runic items as a character's points allow." Since the BoLH is an Ancient Heirloom, it cannot be used by a unit of Slayers.
BSB taking the standard:
•RAW = NO •RAI = YES
Slayer unit (with Ungrim as general) taking the standard:
•RAW = NO •RAI = NO
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Jun 24, 2018 12:53:33 GMT
For that argument to work, you would have to assume that the author is victim of the same logical fallacy. While that is not entirely impossible in theory, that assumption is proven to be incorrect in practice, because the author himself specifies that Ancient Heirlooms are not runic items. Dwarfs AB p.3 (Vengeful Throng): This section also includes the Ancient Heirlooms, magical artefacts your characters can use, and Runic Items — unique rules that allow you to customise magic items for use in your games. Dwarfs AB p. 58: "These items [i.e. Ancient Heirlooms] may be taken in addition to runic items..." Dwarfs AB p. 59: "In other Warhammer armies, characters may carry magic items from the Warhammer rulebook. This is not the case with Dwarfs, who instead may select Ancestral Heirlooms or runic items." Indeed, in the full version of the paragraph you quoted, the author gives an example of what he means: "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. For example, a creature with the Ethereal special rule cannot be hurt by attacks thatare not classified as magical — in which case a runic weapon will also be able to affect it. All the rules that apply to the possession and use of magic items also apply to runic items." --------------Because there is obviously an error with RAW regarding the BSB, it is likely that the Ungrim Slayer unit being unable to take the Ancestral Heirloom banner is also an error. There were too many categories regarding the various magic items for Dwarfs and that wording was used incorrectly in a couple of areas (i.e. BSB being case in point). The parts of the Dwarf book I've previous quoted, indicate to me that the way magic items/ancestral heirloom/runic items are taken, carried, and used are all the same. They count as magic items, they all count toward the magic item limit, etc. Dwarfs can't take magic items from the rule book because the Dwarf book states they cannot. In this sense, all of these words are interchangeable in terms of possession and have they function in the game (they are all magic items), Dwarf characters can have XX amount of their combination. I find it extremely unreasonable for a player to argue that the Slayer unit could not take the Ancestral Heirloom banner when the author already wrote in error preventing the army BSB to carry it either.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 24, 2018 13:25:47 GMT
With all due respect, but your assumption is unnecessary, based on a logical fallacy, and, most importantly, it is contradicted by the author himself.
1. Unnecessary
You have to assume that the author did not make one, but at least four mistakes. In my reasoning, the only change required is to change "runic" into "Magical" in the BSB entry. In your reasoning, we would need to do the same thing for the Slayers AND delete the specific statements on page 3 and 58, on the unproven and unnecessary assumption that these are mistakes too.
2. Logical fallacy.
As explained above, while all Ancient Heirlooms and runic items are Magic Items, not all Magic items are Heirlooms or runic items, nor are Ancient Heirlooms runic items (and vice versa). Magic items are already divided into six categories: Magic Weapons, Magic Armour, Talismans, Enchanted Items, Arcane Items and Magic Standards. here too each category shares all the basic rules that apply to the possession and use of Magic Items in general. But no-one (including you, I daresay) would claim that they become somehow the same or interchangeable. Neither is this the case for Ancient Heirlooms and runic items.
3. Contradicted by the author:
As defined on p. 3 and made concrete in p. 58 ff., the Dwarf book sets aside a number of magic items in the Ancient Heirloom category, specifically stated to be used by characters (with the relevant entry), and introduces in the runic items category unique rules to customise magic items which can be used by both characters and units (with the relevant entry).
Now, while most characters have in their profile the entry: "May take a combination of Ancestral Heirlooms and runic weapons, armour and talismans" not all of them do. The Daemon and Dragon Slayer only have the entry: "May take a runic weapon," while the master Engineer has the entry: "May take runic weapons, armour and talismans." Not a single unit has in its entry an allowance for Ancient Heirlooms. All of this proves that the author makes a clear distinction between Ancient Heirlooms and runic items.
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on Jun 24, 2018 19:12:33 GMT
The only thing I will respond to on the logical fallacy arguement is that, from a fluff point, all dwarvern magic items are runic items as that is how they imbue magic items with power, now I appreciate that fluff isn’t rules and I don’t disagree that bolhs is likely a bsb item in the interpretation of the rules as written but just thought I should add that in.
I also nearly made the same comments as Kevin but I think I must have read too many of your posts as I had a similar answer to what you posted appear in my head (though not quite what you wrote).
It is interesting that slayer characters can’t take ancestral heirlooms I wonder what the thought behind that was.
In terms of fluff, it does actually make sense that slayers can’t take it, as the bolhs is likely held at The Everpeak - Karaz a Karak (where it was created) whereas Ungrim resides in Karak Kadrin so probably wouldn’t have access to it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 24, 2018 20:49:20 GMT
The cause of this particular problem here may perhaps lie in what I call "Undead Rules" and "the ghosts of editions past." It is a regular occurrence that one simply assumes that previous fluff and/or rules still apply. In fact, when the 8th edition came out, I too suffered from that very affliction, until I noticed its pitfalls. That is exactly why I decided to become an Attorney-at-RAW, look up the actual rules, and give verbatim quotes. In previous editions, the Dwarfs had no Ancient Heirlooms, only runic items. But this is not the case anymore, not in the rules, and as far as I can see, not in the fluff either.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 24, 2018 22:51:52 GMT
To be fair to KevinC, I just noticed that the author did in fact make another mistake regarding terminology. When I read knoffles's post, I was wondering why I myself suddenly had started to write "Ancient Heirlooms" instead of "Ancestral Heirlooms." As it turns out, that is because the author himself on p.3 used the term "Ancient" instead of "Ancestral" Heirlooms. Not that it changes the tally that much: in my reasoning, there are now two mistakes; in his five.
But here I go challenging my own position again...
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Jun 25, 2018 9:14:07 GMT
It is a tricky one to decipher what the RAI is here, in my opinion. The RAW is obviously completely botched and if you are attempting to try and work out the "closest" you can get to making the RAW work I would agree with FvonSigmaringen, that the Slayers could not take the BoLH because it does just refer to taking "a runic standard up to 100 points". This however is kind of the same "mistake" which has been made on the Thane listing where it says "The Battle Standard Bearer can have a runic standard (no points limit)". I.e. has the author just made a confused assumption that the BoLH is a runic standard? Did this even enter his head? Should the BoLH just have a line in the rules designating it is a runic standard? Would this even matter if it counts from a "character's points (allowance)" regarding the Slayers?
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jun 25, 2018 9:37:59 GMT
Do not forget that the description of Ancestral Heirlooms specifically states that they are taken by characters, while runic items can be taken by both characters and units. A unit of Slayers is not a character. So, the fact that Slayers can take only runic standards is fully consistent with that. I suspect that the mistake in the BSB entry is simply a "ghost from editions past" (perhaps due to copy/paste), and the author simply forgot to amend "runic" into "Magic."
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on Jun 25, 2018 12:07:17 GMT
With regards to slayer characters only allowed to take runic weapons and not ancestral heirlooms, I did wonder if that distinction was for simplification as ancestral heirlooms cover weapons, armour, talismans and banners and the only way round it would have been to put ancestral heirloom weapons allowed but as it doesn’t state which are weapons/armour/talismans, it might have opened further loopholes.
|
|