PDA

View Full Version : Sword of Might



Gadhrain
10-09-2008, 09:54
Maybe this has been covered but I couldn't find it.

What does actually apply for the sword of might?

in for example the new DE army book it simply sais: +1 strength.

BUT in the rulebook it sais that the sword of might gives +1 to strength when rolling to wound. And that is a major difference since then the Sword of Might actually does not help you defeat armour.

Since the rulebook is the one with the in detail rules for the common items I'm assuming those are the ones that apply right?

/Gadhrain

Benigno (WE)
10-09-2008, 10:01
Oh god, it is +1 Strenght, don't look for stupid interpretation of a damn +1 Str sword!!!

Condottiere
10-09-2008, 10:03
I see no conflict. Generic items don't differ between books except in cost and availability.

Da GoBBo
10-09-2008, 10:23
Oh god, it is +1 Strenght, don't look for stupid interpretation of a damn +1 Str sword!!!

Oh god, he tries to be a hard ass. Just because you never thought about doesn't make the question invalid. The BRB indeed gives a different description than the armiebooks. Gadhrain, rules in the armybooks take prescedence over rules in the BRB, therefor the sword of might confers +1S at all times.

Valaraukar
10-09-2008, 12:17
I think the intent of that line is that if say such a character were required to take a strength test he would use his base strength however when attacking if for any hits he adds +1S when rolling to wound. Surely this must be the strength used for armour save purposes as this relates to the strength of the hit taken not the characters base strength otherwise you might as well say with great weapons, spears for mounted models, lances, flails, halberds etc. that you only get the strength bonus for wounding not ASv.

Lord Malorne
10-09-2008, 12:20
Which would also effect when the weapon is destroyed or rendered powerless (certain things do that for the uneducated, dwarves and high elves for example) so +1 S is only when in combat and not a permanent generic stat increase.

DeathlessDraich
10-09-2008, 13:37
A good observation Gadhrain and definitely worth pointing out.

Fortunately after checking the VC and HE books, the Sword confers +1S. This is probably the same with other armies so there is no problem.

Had another look at the BRB list and it has other incongruities/ambiguities e.g. Sword of Battle.

Da Gobbo, I'm not sure whether stating army book takes precedence really helps with this situation considering:

The BRB explains that a Dispel Scroll has no effect on irresistibly cast spells but army books state it "auto dispels" without further clarification.

Valaraukar
10-09-2008, 14:15
So what we're saying is that as everyone is assumed to have a rulebook these are just quick summaries of the items effects and the full rules are to be found in the rulebook correct?

Or do people really think that whats written in the army books is the case i.e permanent stat boost etc.

I am pretty sure the rulebook has the full and correct rules in this case and no contradiction exists it is just a summary which appears in the ABs to save space.

Gazak Blacktoof
10-09-2008, 14:42
Yes, the rules for the common items in the army books are just summaries of their complete rules.

Normally a specific note is made if a magic weapon doesn't increase the armour save penalty and only affects the to wound roll. I don't think this is the case here.

The weapon is available to everybody (as far as I'm aware) so whatever you decide its going to impact each side, though I'd hesitate to say it does so "equally".

The wording is a bit sloppy but I'd go with the common interpretation, ie the +1 strength is used for both the wound roll and any armour save penalties.

Gadhrain
10-09-2008, 14:51
I am pretty sure the rulebook has the full and correct rules in this case and no contradiction exists it is just a summary which appears in the ABs to save space.

Exactly my thought after reading stuff again. (Btw think that DeathlessDraich example was spot on there with the scrolls)

Thus, sword of might only gives +1S when rolling to "wound rolls". As written in the core rules. Now it actually makes sense to use the biting blade! :p

/Gadhrain

EDIT: Think one should also consider the golden old rule: If it doesn't say that something does something it doesn't do something! :)

Reinnon
10-09-2008, 15:30
Army books overrule the rulebook, for example the vampire counts book says "+1 strength" for the sword of might.

The biting blade is 10 points cheaper anyway, good enough reason to use it.

EDIT: sorry i've just read the vampire book, and it does indeed ask us to refere to the rulebook. Interesting, it seems like you do have a point. Has GW FAQ this issue?

Da GoBBo
10-09-2008, 15:31
I am pretty sure the rulebook has the full and correct rules in this case and no contradiction exists it is just a summary which appears in the ABs to save space.

Well, I have to admit today is the first time I ever thought to look up the rule for common magic items in the BRB (thx Gadhrain). Silly thing to do, state half the rules in them armybooks. DeathlessDraich has a point with his dispellscroll. So I guess I agree with Gadhrain on the fact that a sword of might doesn't effect armoursaves.

edit: O&G pay 10pt. for a SoM and 5 pt for a biting blade, it's different for VC?

Valaraukar
10-09-2008, 15:42
I agree that the ABs only contain summaries but I still think the +1str counts for ASv as I mentioned I think the reason behind the wording when rolling to wound etc. is so that when taking strength tests you don't use the modified strength but the ASv is directly affected by the strength of the attack not the models base strength (unlike strength tests) which in this case has a +1 modifier applied to it and hence IMO an extra -1 to ASv.

Ganymede
10-09-2008, 15:53
The important issue here is not whether or not the rubebook version matches the elven version. The important issue is that the strength bonus portion of the rules at the beginning of the weapons section tells us that these bonuses are only applicable when making attacks. Otherwise, Halberdiers would need a 5+ to fail strength tests.

Valaraukar
10-09-2008, 15:59
Plus the whole armour save bit where people are suggesting the strength used to roll to wound is not the strength used for the armour save.

xragg
10-09-2008, 19:20
If the wound is taken from a S4 hit (base 3 + 1 from sword of might), then the AS is also taken from a S4 hit. You dont revert back to the base strength of a character for AS's, you use the actually strength of the hit. Otherwise, every lance hit would also be S3/4 during AS's and even spells would be saved versus S3 since that the base strength of the source (the wizard).

Sword of might is +1 str only when rolling to wound, not a perma stat increase. The 2 books in front of me, VC and lizards both refer you back to the BRB for complete rules on common magic items. I guess if your specific army book failed to say that, you could probally RAW argue it otherwise, but I doubt you will have many friends doing it that way.

Lord Dan
10-09-2008, 21:58
While I disagree with the RAW statement that the S does not affect the armor save, I'm curious as to how the wording is for common weapons.

For instance, a GW. Does it say "...when rolling to wound"? If that's the case, weapons would never modify armor saves according to RAW. :eek:

Da GoBBo
11-09-2008, 21:26
I agree with all those people stating that the sword of might should effect AS too. I also think it is not according to the rules. Look at it like this:

-rules great weapon: +2S on foot, +1S on horse
-sword of might: +1S when rolling to wound
-some magic item or ability or whatever: adds one attack to profile (I don't know if it exists for strength as well), I think there is a woodelf fighting style thingy that puts it like this.

So, there are cases in which it is specificly stated when a statbonus is added to the profile (the training thingy), there is a notation that drops this and this counts on CC attacks only and effects roles to wound and gives penalties to AS -or thats how everybody plays it (great weapon)-, and we have a rule that only mentions a bonus when rolling to wound.

So, unless it is specificaly stated, stat bonus are never added to the profile and just stating the strengthbonus means it effects both to wound and AS roles. The rules for the sword of might therefore gives additional rulling IMO, otherwise it is nonsense to mention it. I can only conclude it doesn't effect an AS.

Lord Dan
11-09-2008, 21:45
Whatever. My opponents who take the sword of might will get an additional -1AS when wounding my men.

theunwantedbeing
11-09-2008, 22:16
Armybook overrides the BrB where there is a conflict.

BrB says +1 strength when rolling to wound
Armybook says +1 strength

We go off the armybook.

Dark_Mage99
11-09-2008, 22:52
The armybooks override the rulebook when it's regarding rules, yes.

In this case, however, it is an abbreviation of a common magic item. Everyone has the rulebook, so they don't need to repeat the rules for them in their army books - therefore only a brief description of the sword is used.

The Sword of Might adds 1 Strength when rolling to wound - if that's what it says in the BRB. If it does say that, then it's not simply a boosted stat. I would assume that it modifies saves accordingly - but perhaps it doesn't. It would make the Biting Blade more worthwhile if it didn't...

Most (probably all) army books have something along these lines at the top of the page "see the Warhammer rulebook for a complete description..." because the listings in the army books are just abbreviated versions.

theunwantedbeing
11-09-2008, 23:07
That's rather interesting, the old armybooks didn't state that.
I'de forgotten to check the new ones.

Seems you can RAW your way to a +1 strength to a sorceresses magic spells with it :P(failing that, just get st4 handbows)
Even better, you can RAW your way to +1 to hit with any missle weapon to the bearer of the sword of striking, nifty :P.

Obviously not the intention of course.

Dark_Mage99
12-09-2008, 01:49
Aye, someone could argue that their Sword of Striking bestows them with such keen eyes that their longbow get's +1 to hit. Lol.

It's interesting about the Sword of Might, though: it does specifically say "when rolling to wound" - and for many armies the Biting Blade is pointless if the Sword of Might does the same and more for the same points.

I would be tempted to say it doesn't effect armour saves, if the new books weren't making the Biting Blade so cheap.

Reinnon
12-09-2008, 12:05
Ok, new question: does it actually matter if the sword of might only adds +1 strength to the wound roll.

Page 30 of the rulebook says that the armour is modified according to the strength of the "hit", is this the strength of the profile, or the strength of the overall hit and wound roll?

Benigno (WE)
12-09-2008, 12:16
I can't believe the thread is still alive. This is the silliest 'rules thread' I've never seen...

Please, stop bumping this up.

Bob the Butcher
08-10-2008, 05:48
Its pretty simple you add 1 to your Characters base strength
S3 becomes S4 (-1 AS)
S4 becomes S5 (-2 AS)
etc......with the Sword of Might

The advantage of the Sword of Might over the Biting Blade is that it will wound more easily.

The biting Blade will give a -1 to the Armor Save if it wounds (hence it is cheaper).

T10
08-10-2008, 07:16
Wow.

-T10