PDA

View Full Version : Possible misprints in the New High Elf Book.



eagletsi1
10-11-2007, 15:07
Hi,
now that I have the read the book. I have found what I think might be misprints in the book, and was wondering what others thought?

1) Radiant Gem of Hoeth - No longer states you may wear armour with this item. Can anyone think of a reason to take this item now. Other then the +1 dispel dice you get for the cost I can't.

2) BSB states - A noble may take a BSB, but it says nothing about limiting him to armour or items. For instance - According to the the Book a BSB can take a Great sword and shield or other combination. Since this is not allowed by any other BSB in the game, I think this is a misprint.

Let me know,

eagletsi

skavenguy13
10-11-2007, 15:14
There are misprints in every book. That's what erratas are for. But before that, people will usually let it slide if it's obvious, like those 2 cases.

Griefbringer
10-11-2007, 15:15
1) Radiant Gem of Hoeth - No longer states you may wear armour with this item.

With 7th edition, wearing armour no longer prevents a character from casting spells. Thus, special rule for allowing it would be rather meaningless.

Edt: looks like the subject was already discussed yesterday: http://warseer.com/forums/fantasy-general-discussion/111995-radiant-gem-of-hoeth.html

eagletsi1
10-11-2007, 15:27
Where is this at in the Rule Book? I need to know.

Thanks,

Lord of Skulls
10-11-2007, 15:35
Where is this at in the Rule Book? I need to know.
It isn't. That's the point. The rulebook no longer states that you cannot cast spells while wearing armour... A bit tricky to give a page reference for that ;)

last akodo
10-11-2007, 15:42
Haven't got a chance to check this ATM but I'll have a look later. An odd point then is the empire book on pg. 67 The Armour of Tarnus, it says that a model that wears it can still cast spells... Seems a bit odd since it was one of the first books out under 7th. Not to mention that unless they got rid of the upgrade rule (the one that says that a model can only take a magic armour or weapon if it has an upgrade option for that type of item) no spellcaster (not counting warrior priests) in the empire army can actually buy that suit of armour...

Griefbringer
10-11-2007, 16:19
It isn't. That's the point. The rulebook no longer states that you cannot cast spells while wearing armour... A bit tricky to give a page reference for that ;)

One can still check the magic armour section on page 121 to see that there really is no such restriction anymore.

silashand
10-11-2007, 16:30
For the BSB question, one of the designers (Gav I think) mentioned at GD-UK that the restriction on weapons, etc. for BSBs is being phased out of all forthcoming army books. Thus you may equip your BSB however you like and when it comes to combat, he can just stick the thing in the ground and fight as normal, which makes more sense IMO.

In short, it's not a misprint at all. It's most certainly on purpose.

Cheers, Gary

loveless
10-11-2007, 16:31
Haven't got a chance to check this ATM but I'll have a look later. An odd point then is the empire book on pg. 67 The Armour of Tarnus, it says that a model that wears it can still cast spells... Seems a bit odd since it was one of the first books out under 7th. Not to mention that unless they got rid of the upgrade rule (the one that says that a model can only take a magic armour or weapon if it has an upgrade option for that type of item) no spellcaster (not counting warrior priests) in the empire army can actually buy that suit of armour...

You can't take magic armour unless you have the option to take armour in the first place. However, some Army Books make exception to this and have magic armour that can be taken by characters who cannot take mundane armour.
(Warhammer Rulebook - 7th Edition - Page 121 - Magic Armour - third paragraph)

The Armour of Tarnus is such an exception.

Arnizipal
10-11-2007, 18:04
For the BSB question, one of the designers (Gav I think) mentioned at GD-UK that the restriction on weapons, etc. for BSBs is being phased out of all forthcoming army books. Thus you may equip your BSB however you like and when it comes to combat, he can just stick the thing in the ground and fight as normal, which makes more sense IMO.

Really? I'd call it dumbing down rather than common sense.

But then again, Battle Standards have become easier to capture in 7th edition.

Kirth
11-11-2007, 01:09
2) BSB states - A noble may take a BSB, but it says nothing about limiting him to armour or items. For instance - According to the the Book a BSB can take a Great sword and shield or other combination. Since this is not allowed by any other BSB in the game, I think this is a misprint.

Page 85 of the New High Elf Rulebook shows a BSB using a shield, even though the display models can be incorrectly equipped at times, this gives evidence.

Abduction
11-11-2007, 07:21
On page 92 in the box about battle standards it says:
The battle standard bearer can have any magic banner no points limit,but if i carries a magic banner he cannot carry any other magic items
Nothing says that you can't equip him with a shield or a great weapon or any other weapon.

And as pointed out above there's a model of a BSB that's using a shield.

Alathir
11-11-2007, 07:37
Indeed, High Elf battle standard bearers can carry great weapons and shields. There is no rule against it and it is most definitely not a misprint.

Joe Cool
11-11-2007, 09:15
Regarding misprints, why does a Sun Dragon cost a different amount of points for a lord and for an archmage? Moon Dragon costs the same for both. What might be the logic behind this, or could it be just a misprint?

Neknoh
11-11-2007, 09:26
Logic would be that they look at how the different characters will use the dragon and as such, they cost such a big thing differently. Nowhere in the Chaos armybook does it give an explenation as to why marks for Heroes and Lords are priced differently, but again, it's based on the bonus given

Thommy H
11-11-2007, 10:28
Regarding misprints, why does a Sun Dragon cost a different amount of points for a lord and for an archmage? Moon Dragon costs the same for both. What might be the logic behind this, or could it be just a misprint?

Same reason a great weapon costs more for a Lord than a Hero. More powerful characters have more wounds and access to better (more) magic items, so anything used in combination with them is that much more powerful. A combat character can make more use of a dragon than a spellcaster in this instance, so they pay a premium.

MalusCalibur
11-11-2007, 16:48
Same reason a great weapon costs more for a Lord than a Hero. More powerful characters have more wounds and access to better (more) magic items, so anything used in combination with them is that much more powerful. A combat character can make more use of a dragon than a spellcaster in this instance, so they pay a premium.

Except it's the other way around. The Archmage pays more for the Sun Dragon than the Prince does, even though the costs for the Moon Dragon are the same for both.


MalusCalibur

Kloud13
11-11-2007, 17:15
On page 92 in the box about battle standards it says:
Nothing says that you can't equip him with a shield or a great weapon or any other weapon.

And as pointed out above there's a model of a BSB that's using a shield.

Another thing to keep in mind, Dragon Armour is NOT Magic armour.

Headsplitta
11-11-2007, 19:08
I just checked in my VC book and A BSB carrying a magic banner, cannot take any other magic item. He can armour but cannot use a shield or have any weapons save is basic weapon.

Its the same thing with the empire. IMHO, I thing its the same for every other army.

Mouldsta
11-11-2007, 20:11
I just checked in my VC book and A BSB carrying a magic banner, cannot take any other magic item. He can armour but cannot use a shield or have any weapons save is basic weapon.

Its the same thing with the empire. IMHO, I thing its the same for every other army.

Doesn't matter.

Every other army book will tell you that you need 3+ core in 2K, the HE book saying 2+ isn't a misprint.

Thommy H
11-11-2007, 21:22
Except it's the other way around. The Archmage pays more for the Sun Dragon than the Prince does, even though the costs for the Moon Dragon are the same for both.


MalusCalibur

O rly?

I'd have to know more about what a Sun Dragon can do then before coming up with an explanation then I guess. I assumed it made sense, but now you say that it may not do.

Greymarch
12-11-2007, 01:20
Moving a powerful spellcaster around to where he wants to cast spells could be seen as more important than a Lord. I mean, the Archmage costs more to begin with right?

Hellebore
12-11-2007, 01:42
O rly?

I'd have to know more about what a Sun Dragon can do then before coming up with an explanation then I guess. I assumed it made sense, but now you say that it may not do.

Sun dragons are the weakest dragon option available to the High Elves.

I could sort of see the logic if it was the Star Dragon and an arch mage, because he's not a CC monster he would rely more on the dragon for survival and thus it would be proportionately more valuable (and allow for manoeuvring to cast spells).

Hellebore

last akodo
12-11-2007, 10:40
It could be that the 'weakness' of the sun dragon in CC isn't much use to the prince but doesn't matter for the mage where its BW, terror and ability to fly to stay out of harm are far more valuable than its combat prowess.

Thommy H
12-11-2007, 12:33
Yep, that sounds about right then. The ability to zoom a spellcaster around the table is more valuable than that same ability for a combat character but, conversely, once you go up the dragon levels, a dedicated combat rider/mount combo is more valuable than a jack-of-all-trades combat/spell caster model.

That assumes that the bigger dragons are more expensive for Lords now though, so if they're not then I'll have to find a new hypothesis!

Tutore
12-11-2007, 13:06
Both aren't misprints. Every sorcerer may cast spells regardless of armour. However, HE mages cannot take armours as equipment. If you use a noble or prince, which can take armours, and the gem, you get a lvl1 mage with the powers and armours of a prince.

foehammer888
12-11-2007, 13:14
1) Radiant Gem of Hoeth - No longer states you may wear armour with this item. Can anyone think of a reason to take this item now. Other then the +1 dispel dice you get for the cost I can't. As others have mentioned, the ability to wear armor and cast spells is being left to an army-book by army book basis. I don't think any rules needed to be written in the core book. If you don't give a mage the ability to take armor upgrades, he can't take armor.


2) BSB states - A noble may take a BSB, but it says nothing about limiting him to armour or items. For instance - According to the the Book a BSB can take a Great sword and shield or other combination. Since this is not allowed by any other BSB in the game, I think this is a misprint. I see several points of logic for this

1) it was overly restrictive to the BSB, resulting in players not taking them. In the latest edition GW have tried to make BSB more palletable. They now give +1 CR even if another standard is present in the unit. In many codexes, elves and humans for example, they basically required a horse, because it was the only way to get anything resembling a respectable armor save. Otherwise they were easily killed expensive model.

2) consitancy. Why can the Dwarf Hammer Unit's Standard bearer have a hand weapon, great weapon, shield, and standard, but a dwarf thane with a battle standard can only have the hand weapon?

Having battle standard rules and sellling character kits which make battle standards are only useful for GW if the rules are useful enough for people to desire to use them.

Foehammer

Foehammer

itcamefromthedeep
13-11-2007, 13:27
The BSB rules explain the Games day preview model with a shield. GW knows about it, has made the change, and modelled a piece to highlight the new rules. Neither of those rules is a misprint.