PDA

View Full Version : Redlance rules ??



eleveninches
01-04-2008, 11:23
The redlance description simply states
lance. All attacks automatically hit in combat

The warhammer rulebook (in the magic items section) states
All magic weapons ignore all rules for a normal version of the weapon unless specifically stated in the item description

Does this mean that the dreadlance does not gain +2 strength, as it is not explicitly stated in its item description

T10
01-04-2008, 11:31
Yes. But no.

The item is indeed a lance as per its name and background description. Normally this would not be enough. But as part of its function description it is stated that the weapon is indeed a lance. So that's a magical description that references a mundane rule.

-T10

Gorbad Ironclaw
01-04-2008, 12:20
The magic items rules says it's a lance, so it follow all the rules for a lance. It doesn't have to repeat the rules, just tell you what rules to use, and it does that.

Arguleon-veq
01-04-2008, 15:59
Im guessing it auto hits in subsequent rounds of combat too?, If so that is a seriously impressive weapon on a S5 Vamp.

Jack of Blades
01-04-2008, 16:35
Im guessing it auto hits in subsequent rounds of combat too?, If so that is a seriously impressive weapon on a S5 Vamp.

It says that it always autohits, and since you always have to use a Magic Weapon...

SuperBeast
01-04-2008, 17:11
The real bugger is when you have a dread lanced vamp on a monstrous mount and the mount is killed;
He's now on foot, and the BRB states that Lances may ONLY be used by mounted models...
So it's back to mundane HW for him!

fubukii
01-04-2008, 17:24
it should most certainly unless it says "on the turn your vampire charges all his attacks auto hit."

But if its worded all attacks made by a vampire with the dreadlance auto hit, then yes u always autohit in any round of combat u are using the dreadlance (just a note, u always use the lance, even if u arent getting the strength bonus)

Braad
01-04-2008, 19:13
The real bugger is when you have a dread lanced vamp on a monstrous mount and the mount is killed;
He's now on foot, and the BRB states that Lances may ONLY be used by mounted models...
So it's back to mundane HW for him!

Does it say "only may be used" or "only may be taken" by mounted? I don't know, but the last one is the wording for the pigstikka in the O&G book, and there is quite a difference.

I guess...

WusteGeist
01-04-2008, 21:26
Going on what you lot have said it works like thus.
It is a lance ergo it follows normal lance rules. One of those rules is must be mounted for bonus effect IE 2+ st on charge. It is not stated that you must be mounted for magic effect to occur IE all hits are auto hits.
Ergo, if you lost your mount and charged with your model on foot to a enemy unit you would hit auto at your base line ST value.

Thank you please drive through and rember common sense plus logic = rules done right.

Knighta
01-04-2008, 21:36
One of those rules is must be mounted for bonus effect IE 2+ st on charge. It is not stated that you must be mounted for magic effect to occur IE all hits are auto hits.
Ergo, if you lost your mount and charged with your model on foot to a enemy unit you would hit auto at your base line ST value.


But it has stated that it is a lance, and lances cannot be used on foot, it says that in the brb. So if you lost your mount, you would not auto hit because you cant use lances on foot, and the auto-hit rule comes from the lance.

So...


Thank you please drive through and rember common sense plus logic = rules done right.

Tarian
01-04-2008, 21:44
Hrm... I don't have my BRB on me atm, but I know that the HE Star Lance requires the character to be mounted while charging to negate armor saves.

By my interpretation, this means that the character could charge with the Star Lance but not receive the +3 S and Armor Negation.

i.e. If the VC lance doesn't specifically mention the Vamp must be mounted to auto-hit, the Vamp auto-hits.

Just my 2 gil.

Jagosaja
01-04-2008, 23:50
But it has stated that it is a lance, and lances cannot be used on foot, it says that in the brb. So if you lost your mount, you would not auto hit because you cant use lances on foot, and the auto-hit rule comes from the lance.

But this is a magic weapon that is a lance. Being a magic weapon, and having a rule that it must be always used, takes precedence. The increase in strength comes when the model is mounted and charges, but it otherwise remains the same. The rule that it autohits is not bound to the fact that it is a lance, but to the fact that it is a magic weapon, so the weapon will autohit even if on foot.

SuperBeast
01-04-2008, 23:54
By the wording of the BRB, a magic weapon listed as a specific type of weapon also follows the rules of the mundane weapon type.

The BRB lists lances as follows.. Lance (Mounted Only)
For spears and great weapons, it lists type (Mounted) or type (Infantry) for the different effects, as they can be used in either case.

Mounted Only sticks out a mile here, and infers that lances can't be used on foot. Also says 'used exclusively by mounted warriors'...

I'd love to be wrong here, but I couldn't argue it in good conscience.

Nurgling Chieftain
02-04-2008, 00:47
Mounted Only sticks out a mile here, and infers that lances can't be used on foot.What I infer is that the following rules for the lance (+2 strength on the charge) only apply when mounted. (P.S.: Random semantics note! A book implies rather than infers. When you read a book, you infer from it - hopefully you infer what it implies, although obviously two people may infer two different things from the same implications.)

One can infer various implications here, but (A) lacking a direct rule stating that the lance cannot be used at all by a formerly mounted model, while (B) having a rule stating that the magical lance MUST be used, I think I have to go with the lance still being used.

Besides, a lance makes a serviceable - if imperfect - spear-like weapon on foot in RL.

SuperBeast
02-04-2008, 01:07
What I infer is that the following rules for the lance (+2 strength on the charge) only apply when mounted. (P.S.: Random semantics note! A book implies rather than infers. When you read a book, you infer from it - hopefully you infer what it implies, although obviously two people may infer two different things from the same implications.)

One can infer various implications here, but (A) lacking a direct rule stating that the lance cannot be used at all by a formerly mounted model, while (B) having a rule stating that the magical lance MUST be used, I think I have to go with the lance still being used.

Besides, a lance makes a serviceable - if imperfect - spear-like weapon on foot in RL.
That's entirely possible, and how I'd like to play it.
However, if an opponent called me on it, I couldn't come up with a cast-iron case for that interpretation.
Hence deferring to RAW.
Or, to put it another way, disadvantage myself for the sake of avoiding an argument.

Lord Dan
02-04-2008, 05:38
You can buy ANY magic item your allowed to buy, mount or no.


No. You can't. If the BRB stated: "The effects of which happen when mounted", I think you'd have an argument. Rather, it states "Mounted only". That's pretty clear cut.

As to whether or not it can be used if you mount is removed mid-game I cannot say. (Personally I think it's absurd to argue for such a case, but that's just me) However taking a lance with a character that never had a mount is right out.


Edit: Forgot the quote!

KUMA
02-04-2008, 06:54
I believe there is some FAQ that states a magic weapons effect is always in effect....effectively still allowing auto hits without a mount !

T10
02-04-2008, 06:57
If a VC character with the Dread Lance suddenly finds himself on foot, then he will still be compelled to use this magical weapon in close combat.

The difference is that the lance no longer provides the bonuses it did when the character was mounted (i.e.: +2 Strength when charging).

The rest of its rules apply in full.

-T10

DeathlessDraich
02-04-2008, 11:09
Does this mean that the dreadlance does not gain +2 strength, as it is not explicitly stated in its item description

Possibly, but as you can see from the other posts, hardly anyone interprets it this way mainly because of the phrase "unless otherwise specified".
To most other players, except Atrahasis,:p the word 'lance' is good enough to qualify as 'unless otherwise specified'.


because you cant use lances on foot, and the auto-hit rule comes from the lance.


This cannot be consistently applied as a general rule - see below.**


By the wording of the BRB, a magic weapon listed as a specific type of weapon also follows the rules of the mundane weapon type.

The BRB lists lances as follows.. [I]Lance (Mounted Only)
For spears and great weapons, it lists type (Mounted) or type (Infantry) for the different effects, as they can be used in either case.

Mounted Only sticks out a mile here, and infers that lances can't be used on foot. Also says 'used exclusively by mounted warriors'...

I'd love to be wrong here, but I couldn't argue it in good conscience.

Your interpretation is - Words in bracket is [or implies] can be used by.
That's one way of looking at it.

Another way I've arrived at by studying all the words in brackets on pages 56/57 is:
- Words in bracket is [or implies] when used by
e.g. Great weapons (mounted/infantry) = Great weapon when used by mounted/infantry etc.
Pistols (Shooting) = etc etc

Unless the rules categorically states that lances can only be used by mounted models, your interpretation will remain an assumption on equal footing as the alternative

**
1) There is a rules precedent for allowing mundane or magical lances for characters on foot - Bretonnians

2) On the question of whether the Dread lance still auto hits when the character is dismounted.
Pg 120 indicates quite clearly that it does. When there is a contradiction, the rules of the magic item takes precedence.

eleveninches
02-04-2008, 11:45
No mundane items get their mundane bonuses unless those bonuses are stated clearly in the item description



It is a lance ergo it follows normal lance rules The rulebook states that if magic items lose ALL special rules for that item unless they are specified in the item description. The item description does NOT say that the bearer gains +2 strength, therefore it does not gain the strength bonus. I know it was meant to give +2 strength, and was probably an oversight. However, that is what is stated in the rulebook, so that is what should be obayed.

This is why the starlance clearly states that the wielder gets +3 strength. That is the effect of the starlance. If you got the mundane bonus as well just for being a lance, then the starlance would end up giving the wielder S9:
S4 Lord
+2 for lance
+3 for magic item's enchantment

Reinnon
02-04-2008, 11:50
but it says "lance" in its rule description - its a lance and therefore would have all the rules for a lance.

Its like trying to argue that the Sword of the Quest from bretonnias, when declared as a great weapon isn't a great weapon - both items say what they are in the rules.

If i remember right the starlance doesn't say that it is a lance - merely that it mimics the rules for a lance

eleveninches
02-04-2008, 12:01
It doesnt matter that it says that it is a lance. It does not state the specific rules for a lance, and therefore does not get the benefits of a mundane lance. Read the rulebook in the magic items section.

Reinnon
02-04-2008, 12:08
i have, it says "unless otherwise specified in the weapons description" - the fact that the dreadlance says "lance" in its rule sections leads me to believe that it is in fact - a lance.

The use of the term lance in the rules section strikes me as pretty clear that the designers intended the dreadlance to function as a lance - the "unless otherwise specified in the weapon description" part in this case referes to the term "lance" in the rule section.

Otherwise, why even mention it in the rules for the dreadlance? Ergo why not ignore the rule for auto hitting? We can't just cut out parts of the rules.

It has been otehrwise stated that the dreadlance follows all the rules for a lance - via the use of the word Lance. Is the black axe of krell therefore not a great weapon? Ergo i should be able to combine enchanted shield with it by your rules argument.

eleveninches
02-04-2008, 12:19
I know that thats what it was meant to be. Its just that its not stated clearly. I wouldnt stop anyone using it with +2 strength to hit, as i know that it was meant to have +2S. Im just arguing that someone could technically say that it shouldnt havee +2S on the charge. Someone should be fired for the lack of clarity in the VC rules:

Dredlance and axe of krell not having their bonuses clearly stated.
IoN and Vanhels dance not stating that they can be cast into combat.
No clarification as to whether or not vampires should be able to cast spells whislt wearing armour

Reinnon
02-04-2008, 12:24
but it does say that dreadlance gets +2 strength on the charge! That is rule lawyering to the utter exterme of rule lawyering - no one can argue that it isn't a lance because it says it is!

There is no rule that states you can't cast spells while armour, so thats not really an oversight, on IoN yes it is pretty unclear - but the dreadlance and casting magic in armour is perhaps the least confusing rule in the vampire book.

eleveninches
02-04-2008, 12:32
It does say that it is a lance. But you dont get the mundane bonuses unless they are stated in the item description. It does not say +2S in the item description, therefore it is a lance that doesnt get the mundane bonus of +2S.

And there is a rule that says that wizards cannot cast spells in armour unless they have the option of wearing the mundane armour of the same type. So even with bloodline powers, vampires are not allowed to cast whilst wearing any of the light armour or plate armours listed in the magic armours section of the book

Gazak Blacktoof
02-04-2008, 12:47
The rulebook states that if magic items lose ALL special rules for that item unless they are specified in the item description.

The item rules term it as a lance. The star lance also counts as a lance, but it notes that instead of +2 strength you get +3.

Lances (BRB) state that they are for mounted models only "Lances (Mounted Only)." Whatever the additional rules of a magical weapon counting as a lance you can't use it on foot and will be reduced to using a hand weapon/ great weapon or what ever else you are equipped with*.


*Unless there is a rule precedent in an FAQ that says otherwise.

The pigstikka for orcs and goblins specifically notes that it is for mounted characters only because it is a spear, if it did not then characters on foot would gain advantages from using it because there are rules for spears for models on foot and mounted models (see great weapons below).

A magic great weapon has two sets of rules one set for models on foot (+2 strength, requires two hands, strikes last +magic properties) and one set for models that are mounted (+1 strength, requires two hands, strikes last +magic properties). A lance only has one set of properties (for mounted models) a lance therefore cannot be used on foot- there are no rules for doing so.

EDIT: @Eleven inches
Its a bit rude to just tell people they are wrong but I think you're way off the mark. The page you are referring to in the BRB with regards to magic weapon properties is for weapons that state they are a flail, spear, etc in the name or fluff component of the item description but do not use the rules for such a weapon.

The Clairvoyant
02-04-2008, 12:54
the item says that its a lance in the item description therefore it uses the lance rules.
I don't have the rulebook to hand but i'm sure it says that magic items lose all mundane properties unless stated. Stating the item is a lance is good enough to count the item as a mundane lance.

As for the not being able to cast while wearing armour without having a silly option, i think if you try to pull that off you're likely to get beaten round the head with a blunt object. It seems perfectly clear that a vampire with armour, whether magical or bought via avatar of death or dreadknight can cast spells.

Sometimes these rules lawyers make me glad i play warhammer with a reasonable bunch of people

Griefbringer
02-04-2008, 13:23
And there is a rule that says that wizards cannot cast spells in armour unless they have the option of wearing the mundane armour of the same type.

Would you feel like providing a page reference for this rule from the BRB?

[Goes to make some pop corn in the meanwhile.]

EvC
02-04-2008, 14:32
It's on page 5039, just after the bit about Battle Standards only being able to use one hand to wield a weapon in combat.