Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The Chamber of the Everchosen. We hope you enjoy your visit!


Here at COTEC we are all about the Warriors of Chaos in Warhammer Fantasy Battle.

Tactics to help you slaughter your opponent on the tabletop, through to galleries on how to build your next Warshrine. Its all covered... and growing!

We are a forum for gamers and hobbyist alike and again would like to welcome you to a fun, friendly, warm place and hope to see you again!


Join our legion! Takes less than a minute and gives you access to everything!


If you're already a member please log in to your account by entering the correct runes and words of power:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Chaos vs Brits
Topic Started: May 23 2013, 07:35 AM (968 Views)
MyNameDidntFit
The Dark Prince
By pointing out there's no more a rule stating their Magic Weapons than there is stating that Lore of Tzeentch has Flaming Attacks?

I realise I'm sounding incredibly stubborn, but I'm still yet to see the part of the rules that says anything outside of the "Magic Weapons" section of the BRB counts as a Magic Weapon unless it specifically says so.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LORD VOKUL'NAX
Member Avatar
Corrupted Slann
A mundane weapon that grants magic attacks seems a bit too convenient for me. I'm surprised that no one you've played against has ever called you on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MyNameDidntFit
The Dark Prince
Oh, personally, it's never come up. I've very rarely run anything ensorcelled since the last book and never with BoEF or against someone who'd waste a Vaul's on them.

Just so far as I can see it, adding in clauses to the rules because you don't like the way they read is a touch silly. Yeah, logically, I'd say a weapon that has magical attacks would be a magic weapon... but the rules don't say that. Every other Magic Weapon in 8th says "Magic Weapon" in its rules. Ensorcelled Weapons do not and, for me, that seems pretty clear cut.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kal
The Chosen
Ok so i may be mildly confused here. But if i say had a unit of Skullcrushers with Ensorcelled weapons. ANd u say had an item/spell/weapon that destroyed a magic weapon on a model wounded or anything along those lines. How would one model lose his weapon? Or would the whole unit?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
honorandglory
Member Avatar
The Chosen
If the Skullcrushers had "Magic" weapons and they were targeted by say vault making. one model would lose his magic weapons and the rest of the unit would not. BUT ensorcelled weapons are NOT magic weapons they simply confer magic attacks, like daemons and ethereal special rules attacks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kal
The Chosen
Ic ic ok makes sense. Thanks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godless-Mimicry
Member Avatar
No' 9

MyNameDidntFit
May 26 2013, 11:21 AM
It's also not as simple assuming "Magical Attacks = Magic Weapon". There's a very defined set of "Magic Weapons" in the rule book. To quote yourself 'it may be an oversight but that doesn't mean making up rules is the right answer when there are ones already'.

If you can find any piece of the rules that says Ensorcelled Weapons count as Magic Weapons, then I'll bow to your argument.

Until then it's more "RAW vs Rules as Made Up" than RAW vs RAI.
Of course it isn't that simple, which is why I'm the one advocating that it needs an FAQ or at least the say so of Kal's gaming group for how he should play it, whereas you are saying your opinion is fact and then hypocritically making posts like you have above.

And the fact that you are comparing the suggestion of weapons that give magical attacks being magic weapons with saying Ld0 units should use an arbitrary value that isn't even in the unit just shows how lacking your argument is; the first is clearly a case of common sense and RAI which is what most Warhammer arguments stem from, while the latter has no common sense or precedent within, it really is just making stuff up, which is where my older comment which you have quoted comes in. I have no doubt you can clearly see the difference but are choosing to ignore it.

The bottom line is there is no clear cut answer to this, and the debate this goes on in various places, and until GW resolves it with an FAQ different people will play it different ways and everyone will be both right and wrong in one way or another, but ultimately your word alone doesn't decide the fact, not until your name is on the inside cover of the rulebook.

honorandglory
May 26 2013, 10:34 AM
Are the hand weapons of Ethereal units magic weapons? How about the hand weapons of demon units? These are the same concept. In the last book they were absolutely magic weapons, and so could be destroyed by thing that destroyed magic items. Now they simply confer magic attacks and as such can't be destroyed by things that target magic items.
The hand weapons of Ethereal units do not confer their magical attacks, the unit itself does. The hand weapons of Daemon units do no confer their magical attacks, the unit itself does. The hand weapons of Chaos Knights and Skullcrusher do confer their magical attacks, no the unit. There's no precedent or comparison in what you have posted.

Give me a logical reason why weapons that confer magical attacks are not magic weapons, and then we'll talk. As it stands both arguments above are laying out clearly flawed premises, and to me it looks like it's for the sake of having an in-game advantage rather than trying to win an argument. As I said, bottom line is the matter will remain unresolved, so I see no reason to argue it further, as all arguments are already on the table, and also it is not the topic of the thread. Feel free to reply but I will not be participating any further and would like for the thread to get back on topic after you do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
honorandglory
Member Avatar
The Chosen
The logical point behind my reason is easy, they are NOT listed as magic weapons. They are listed as weapons that grant magical attacks and +1strength. Fluff wise you are correct the weapon confers the bonus therefore it would make since to classify them as magic weapons. But bringing fluff into a rules debate is a big no-no.

Quick question, if a unit with the flaming banner had the spell Enchanted Blades of Aiban cast on each, does the flaming banner stop working? Fluff wise the weapons are magically enchanted,rules wise they are still mundane with an added effect.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kal
The Chosen
I thought they were just normal regular weapons that have an enchantment from w.e god they worship. Weapons are just steel but the wounds they inflict are magical kinda deal?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
honorandglory
Member Avatar
The Chosen
Winner winner chicken dinner.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Wulfrik
Member Avatar
The Chosen
They really should FAQ this, because it is definitely rather dumb. They are clearly magical weapons, so logically, they should have the same restrictions as magic weapons.

However, with the current rules, you absolutely can have Flaming on the Knights (or Poison, for that matter).

Ensorcelled weapons state the following:
Quote:
 
Attacks made with ensorcelled weapons are resolved at +1 Strength. In addition, these are magical attacks.
Now let's compare that to a unit that actually does get magic weapons, Bloodletters. Here's what it says for Hellblades:
Quote:
 
Magic Weapon. Attacks made with a Hellblade have the Killing Blow special rule.
Those two words at the beginning make all the difference. If you look at the Plaguebearers' Plagueswords, they say the same thing: Magic Weapon. So yeah, until they FAQ it otherwise, it's completely legal to use the Flame banner on Knights.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kal
The Chosen
I took it off anyways. Didnt mean for this to spark a big argument haha
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LORD VOKUL'NAX
Member Avatar
Corrupted Slann
Situations such as this will always creep up when dealing with a system of rules with the complexity and magnitude as used by Warhammer. Even with the authors best intentions and careful planning a few things will always slip through. In the end it comes down to INTERPRETATION, and different people will interpret things differently. Until a faq/errata clears it up, it is best to discuss it with your opponent/gaming group BEFORE (and I can't stress the word before enough) the start of the game. Otherwise it will just break down into arguments which defeat the purpose of the game.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
honorandglory
Member Avatar
The Chosen
Not really a big argument, a lot of Chaos players may not have noticed the change, and now they know. And knowing is half the battle.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LORD VOKUL'NAX
Member Avatar
Corrupted Slann
I don't think there is any real "knowing" when it comes to something like this. Until there is a faq/errata, it is interpretation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Tactics · Next Topic »
Add Reply