PDA

View Full Version : a few wood elf magic item questions



Reinnon
11-09-2005, 10:52
hi there

reading through the wood elf book (thinking of doing an army now :) ) i came across some problems with spites and magic items.

firstly, spites in general.

if i have say a tree man ancient, can i give him 2 cluster of radieants and then give a branch wraith one?

the wording seems to suggest i can, but in the same sentence it states spites are like magic items and therefore one per army.

secondly, the stone of rebirth.

it states that when i get to 1 wound i gain a 3+ ward save, however above it it states one use only.

do i only get the save once? again it seems to suggest i do but the entry itself lacks "once per battle".

thirdly, the amber pendant, i assume that it punches through magical abilities to strike first like Grimgor? I can see this being a point that will argued about in the future so i would like to know whether my point is the correct point.

thanks in advance

Xavier
11-09-2005, 11:12
You can only have one of each type of sprite in an army.

Normal characters may only have one sprite

Forest spirit characters may have any number of spites, but still must observe the one of each type per army rule.

Avian
11-09-2005, 14:10
it states that when i get to 1 wound i gain a 3+ ward save, however above it it states one use only.

do i only get the save once? again it seems to suggest i do but the entry itself lacks "once per battle".
Having read this discussion on another forum, the concensus there was that it was to stop you from getting the 3+ Ward if you got healed up to above 1 Wound (for example from the regeneration spell). So you get the save as long as you stay at 1 wound, but if you fall below 1 wound or get healed up to 2+ Wounds, it stops working and can't be used again.



thirdly, the amber pendant, i assume that it punches through magical abilities to strike first like Grimgor?
Why would it? Is your magic better than other people's magic? Magic is magic.

Anyway, it goes like this:
"This item says you go last, even if you'd go first."
"Ah, but MY item says I go first, even if I'd go last."

Basically you roll a D6 each time you get a conflic.

(I blame Anthony Reynolds for writing such stupid rules...)

T10
11-09-2005, 15:00
(Always strike first)

It seems that GW should definetly consider creating a special rule that specifically deals with first-strike abilities.

It could be called - oh, I don't know - First Strike?

-T10

mielherne
11-09-2005, 15:06
(Always strike first)

It seems that GW should definetly consider creating a special rule that specifically deals with first-strike abilities.

It could be called - oh, I don't know - First Strike?

-T10

verry true, most armies can get one way or an other this.

samw
11-09-2005, 19:01
I thought the stone of rebirth was simply like the "2+ ward against first wound suffered" items from other people's armies, except coming into play on the last rather than the first wound. i.e.when you are on one wound left and suffer a wound you roll a die, and on a 2+ discount that wound. The item then stops working. This seems appropriate for 30 pts.

WLBjork
11-09-2005, 21:41
(Always strike first)

It seems that GW should definetly consider creating a special rule that specifically deals with first-strike abilities.

It could be called - oh, I don't know - First Strike?

-T10

Then you get even more confusing things, such as Doomseekers...

T10
11-09-2005, 22:36
What, you mean something that attacks even before First Strike?

Perhaps a Pre-Emptive Strike? :)

-T10

Vomax
12-09-2005, 02:43
First-er Strike.

amagi
14-09-2005, 06:00
I agree with samw about the Stone of Rebirth. You would only get the 2+ save once. A permanent 2+ save, even one that only takes effect at 1 wound, should cost a lot more than 30 points. Like samw said there are existing items that already give a one-time-only 2+ save near death and they cost about the same. It's just like getting an extra wound, only there's a slight chance it won't work. An extra wound would cost about 50 points, so that slight chance of failure drops it to 30.

Falkman
14-09-2005, 08:37
ILike samw said there are existing items that already give a one-time-only 2+ save near death and they cost about the same.
Thatīs true, but those items' descriptions are entirely different from the Stone of Rebirth.
If the stone was intended to work as those other items, wouldnīt it just have a description like those?

amagi
14-09-2005, 12:16
Such a question reveals that you are under the delusion that GW's staff follows the laws of Aristotelian logic. In contrast to such naive fancies, the truth is that GW staffers inhabit a parallel universe of shifting definitions and non-standard practices. So no, it would not have a description like those. Just like the other Wood Elf item, the Amber Pendant, which mysteriously causes the enemy to strike last instead of allowing you to strike first, but which fails to explain which takes precedence when said enemy has his own "strike first" magic item....
Welcome to the GW-zone.

Griefbringer
14-09-2005, 12:53
Such a question reveals that you are under the delusion that GW's staff follows the laws of Aristotelian logic. In contrast to such naive fancies, the truth is that GW staffers inhabit a parallel universe of shifting definitions and non-standard practices.

Truely immortal - almost makes me want to change my sig again! :D

Crazy Harborc
14-09-2005, 19:42
In past editions of 40K and WHFBs the suggestion of using a dice off to decide what item(s)/rule(s) will be used when two (or more) conflict etc. It's not a precedent setting roll, but a one time, happening by happening roll.

Dice offs are mentioned in 6th Ed. too. Check the "writers statement".

anarchistica
15-09-2005, 00:30
What, you mean something that attacks even before First Strike?

Perhaps a Pre-Emptive Strike? :)

-T10
Reach! It's the future! :p

Stone of Rebirth: As far as i know, the exact wording is this:

"When the wearer is reduced to one Wound this item bestows a 2+ Ward Save."

Even if this isn't the exact ruling (my copy isn't entirely legal), the answer is still simple:

If an effect is triggered, it does not untrigger until the happening that triggered it is reversable and reversed.

So if an item says (like above): "If x happens, you get y", the y still applies even if whatever x is is reversed.

If an item says: "If x applies, you get y", the x must apply for the effect to apply. So if the item would read "if the bearer has one Wound, he gets a 2+ ward save", the bearer would lose the ward save if he somehow regains a Wound.

Lion El Jason
15-09-2005, 01:01
Why would it? Is your magic better than other people's magic? Magic is magic.

Anyway, it goes like this:
"This item says you go last, even if you'd go first."
"Ah, but MY item says I go first, even if I'd go last."

Basically you roll a D6 each time you get a conflic.


Errr...no
This is wrong. The situation isn't a conflict as its covered by the item.

"I always strike first"
"Ah my item says if you would always strike first then you go last"
"I go last then because thats what the rules say"

The items dont say "I go first, even if I'd go last" either. they just say "Strikes first" which is covered well in the rules for the pendant.

Why do you think it costs 10 points more than an always goes first item? It's because the pendant trumps them.

amagi
15-09-2005, 01:21
Why do you think it costs 10 points more than an always goes first item? It's because the pendant trumps them.
I agree.
Re: Anarchistica--I disagree. That's like having an item like this:

"Wand of Ultimate Annihilation:
One use only--as soon as the character is attacked in combat, he gets +1WS for the rest of the game."

It makes no sense. It wouldn't be "One use only" then. It's pointless to call it that, since it applies for every turn.

I think they meant that the Stone gives a one-use-only save. That may be why they called it "one use only."

But who knows. That's just me imposing my dogmatic theories of "consistency" and "definitions" on GW's more dynamic, intuitive approach to the English language.

Avian
15-09-2005, 12:28
Why do you think it costs 10 points more than an always goes first item? It's because the pendant trumps them.
Because a Wood Elf is less likely to be able to strike back if attacked first than a high-Toughness good-armour Chaos Character? So it's more valuable?
Or it doesn't come with any downsides?
(it's not as if the character becomes Stupid or anything, is it?)

One item says you go last if you'd otherwise go first and another says you go first if you'd otherwise go last.
-> Roll a dice for it and curse the guy who wrote such rules in the first place.

anarchistica
15-09-2005, 16:09
Re: Anarchistica--I disagree. That's like having an item like this:

"Wand of Ultimate Annihilation:
One use only--as soon as the character is attacked in combat, he gets +1WS for the rest of the game."

It makes no sense. It wouldn't be "One use only" then. It's pointless to call it that, since it applies for every turn.

I think they meant that the Stone gives a one-use-only save. That may be why they called it "one use only."
I didn't mention the 'one use only' thing. ;)

Of course, because it's 'one use only', the triggered effect only applies once.

:p

Reinnon
15-09-2005, 16:18
erm....i've actually decided to read the pendant rules and it does state quite clearly:

"even if they have charged or have a ability which would allow them to strike first"

thats quite clear, you always strike first with the pendent, teaches me to actually read the rules before asking about them :)

Drasanil
15-09-2005, 16:31
Or it doesn't come with any downsides?
(it's not as if the character becomes Stupid or anything, is it?)

Yes it is for characters on foot only, cost 10pts more than always strike first abilities and as previously mentioned it makes all enemies strike last even those with abilities which would allow them to strike first. The intent of the item was pretty clear.... make eternal guard led by a character sporting this nice little trinket better at receiving a charge since they will also strike before those enemies in contact with the character wearing the pendant.

Although I still miss the amber amulet, I still can't figure out why they got rid of it... :(

anarchistica
15-09-2005, 16:34
Avian: Which items say you always strike first if you'd otherwise go last? I did a quick search and all i can find are items refering to always striking first even when charged and sometimes it mentions opponent's being able to strike first too. Maybe you're confused by the Helm of Many Eyes, because it mentions "even if you are armed with a weapon which would normally make you strike last" or something along those lines?

Avian
15-09-2005, 16:39
Everything that says you always strike first. Always means always. Grimgor, for example, always strikes first. There doesn't have to be any "including", because "always", as I said, is always.

amagi
15-09-2005, 17:26
Except when a Wood Elf item comes along and says you go last even if you "normally strike first" because of "an ability."
I think it's pretty clear--the WE item trumps other "strike first" magic items.
By the wording of the rules that's what it does. Hopefully they'll put out an errata or Q&A to clarify all these problems with WE rules.
Really, I know it gets old complaining about GW's ineptitude at rules-wording, but they just continue to amaze me with their ability to spread confusion and ambiguity.

Avian
15-09-2005, 17:36
Seriously...
You cannot expect descriptions like:
"Immovable object. Cannot be moved, not even by causes that can move immovable objects."
:eyebrows:

That's just silly.

anarchistica
15-09-2005, 18:33
Everything that says you always strike first. Always means always. Grimgor, for example, always strikes first. There doesn't have to be any "including", because "always", as I said, is always.
You're wrong there.

Strikes first items/abilities say you strike first even if charged.

The Amber Pendant says: "Any enemy models in base contact with the bearer of the Amber Pendant automatically strike last - even if they charged or have an ability that would allow them to normally strike first."

It specifically mentions such items and abilities.

Lion El Jason
19-09-2005, 15:23
About the pendant vs other items that strike first:
This is kind of a theme in WE items.
Think about it this way-
Mericws' Locus vs. Sword of Might
Do you roll off to see if the sword gives its strength bonus? No! of course not...This is EXACTLY the same situation...its an item that stops another items ability from working and is specifically mentioned. No roll off is necessary.

If we rolled off for all conflicts it would get rediculous!

"My sword ignores srmour saves"
"My magic armour gives me a 5+ save cos its heavy armour"
"Oh! Roll off then"

See its rediculous to think thered be a roll off for the pendant situation...

Cenyu
19-09-2005, 16:32
Dark Elf Crimson Death: "Always strikes with S6. No other modifiers will ever reduce this."

vs.

Wood Elves Merciw's Locus: "[...] receive no strength bonusses from magical or non-magical weapons."



He..he...he.

:-|

Lion El Jason
19-09-2005, 19:57
Well done...another way to prove my point.

In this case clearly the DE strikes at str6.
Actually for 2 reasons:
The crimson death is immune to modifiers but this is irrelevant since the locus dosen't modify. But the crimson death says it strikes at str 6. This isn't a bonus as such, so the locus has no effect.

Festus
19-09-2005, 20:23
How shall I put it?

You are right and wrong, IMO.

To the pendant:
Each specific *first strike* item has its own set of rules regarding who is entitled if both have the same ability.
The pendant will always trump here, as it overrides any I-ruling or similar.

To the Locus:
This item specifically stops Magic Weapons giving +S, the rules for Crimson Death just ignores modifiers, which the Locus does not add or deduct.
So the Crimson Death is rather useless if squared off against the locus: It doesn't add the strenght as the Magic doesn't work.


Greetings
Festus

Lion El Jason
19-09-2005, 20:45
But the crimson death dosent modify the strength. So the locus cannot stop the strength 6 because its not what it does. If the CD gave +2 strength it would be nullified by the locus but as it just has str 6 IMO it keeps it

Spider
19-09-2005, 22:00
These are brainbending rules.

Damn GW!

But if we are argueing that the WE amulet "trumps" all other first strike because the rules specifically say it does...which IMO they do, then the Dark Elves Crimson doodad will trump the Locus...because its desription specifically says so.

Maybe. :rolleyes:

Festus
19-09-2005, 22:04
Hi

But the crimson death dosent modify the strength. So the locus cannot stop the strength 6 because its not what it does. If the CD gave +2 strength it would be nullified by the locus but as it just has str 6 IMO it keeps it
I suggest you reread the description of the MAgic Items carefully again:

CD: Always strikes with S6. No other modifiers will ever reduce this.

As there is no DE capable of using this weapon with a S of 6 or even above, this is a bonus to the S of the user. This bonus granted by this weapon may not be fixed like, say +2S, but can be either +2S or +3S IIRC.

Locus: ...receive no strength bonusses from magical or non-magical weapons

This is not a modifier to any given S value, it just ignores any bonusses given, it doesn't modify anything at all.
So the CD's rule about reducing modifiers does never kick in.

Thus the Locus trumps.

Greetings
Festus

Lion El Jason
20-09-2005, 00:14
Hmmm, well you have me Hmmming but I still think the Crimson Death wins.

I think fixing the strength at 6 isnt the same as giving a bonus myself so the locus wont try to stop it working. IMO a bonus is defined as a numbered increase to something.

I'd like to hear others oppinions but I do agree that the no modifiers thing the CD has is of no use either way.

Avian
20-09-2005, 10:06
I would roll off in all cases where there is even the slightest doubt.

Having read the WE book, I must say I read it as only trumping abilities such as pikes and assassin's strike first, and only equallying others.




Each specific *first strike* item has its own set of rules regarding who is entitled if both have the same ability.
The pendant will always trump here, as it overrides any I-ruling or similar.

Not all items or abilities have any such description. If you are going by this logic, Grimgor ALWAYS strikes first, no exceptions.

Lion El Jason
20-09-2005, 10:54
IMO in this case there isn't even the slightest doubt. This is clearly what the item is for and it is explicitly stated in the item description. I cant see how you can differentiate between one type of always strikes first and another type of always strikes first.

Festus
20-09-2005, 10:58
Hi


Not all items or abilities have any such description. If you are going by this logic, Grimgor ALWAYS strikes first, no exceptions.
May I point you to the Chronicles Q&A, p. 116, 1st column, last paragraph? :)

Greetings
Festus

Lion El Jason
20-09-2005, 15:00
Err...no you can't

What does it say as my versions do not have Q&A at that page number...

Festus
20-09-2005, 20:08
Hi

... my versions do not have Q&A at that page number...
Might I then suggest that you bookmark this particular link here:

GW WH FAQ (http://uk.games-workshop.com/chronicles/faq/assets/warhammer-faq.pdf)
Greetings
Festus