PDA

View Full Version : Wizard + Sword of Justice = re-roll fireball wounds?



Dranthar
07-04-2009, 23:46
Okay, so I had a discussion with a friend last night about this.

Sword of Justice is an Empire magic weapon that allows the model to reroll failed wounds. Since there's no condition to those rerolls (eg. "in combat", "in shooting" etc) would he thus be able to use it for spells cast by a wizard equipped with it (eg. a fireball that rerolls failed wounds)?

To me, it's clear that the designers intended it to be a "HTH only" ability. But by RAW it seems he's right.

Can anyone add to this conundrum?

Ganymede
07-04-2009, 23:52
Nope, you pretty much spelled it out right there.

stripsteak
08-04-2009, 00:07
is it time to bring out the other silly worded items?! i think it is...

weeping blade. 'each unsaved wound is multiplied into d3 wounds.' yay for everything on the table doing d3 wounds!!

blade of nurglitch - 'Enemy models lose 1 point of toughness from their profile for each unsaved wound they suffer, to a minimum of Toughness 1.' no mention of where the wound comes from by RAW must mean every wound the enemy models take...

and thats just the skaven book.

anyway.
in the cases with weapons you can generally assume their affects apply only to the attacks made with that weapon. unless they specifically say otherwise.

*sorry for the kinda silly post i'm tired*

Nurgling Chieftain
08-04-2009, 01:10
No, stripsteak, those are good examples. People need to keep in mind that context is important.

Dranthar
08-04-2009, 01:34
Interesting. The Weeping Blade and Blade of Nurglitch seem pretty convincing. Are there any other examples? Off the top of my head, what about the sword of might, which IIRC simply states +1 strength? Would it be a similar arguement to say that it also boosts spells? Also would it count for characteristic tests?

Also, are there any items that support the other side of the arguement? eg. They give a "broad" effect without explicitly stating so?

Ultimate Life Form
08-04-2009, 05:33
LM Skavenpelt Banner:

The unit is in Frenzy. Doesnīt say which unit though, so I think itīs safe to assume it means every unit.:D

havoc626
08-04-2009, 05:38
While I know it never states anywhere in the rule for this, and that most people are now just taking the ****, you usually have to be USING a weapon for it to take affect. I think GW was relying on a bit of common sense there.

Mind you, they DID rule that it made sense alchemically for a suit of armour to deflect a flaming cannonball, but not a normal one.

knightime98
08-04-2009, 05:49
There's a special magic item that all my armies have..
It's called the "Club of Common Sense".. I beat you with it until you realize that what you are doing is cheating in essence. Stop bending the rules to fit your quirky ideas!

This goes in line with the Dwarven Flame Cannon bit.. Oh, but the rules for the cannon doesn't say that it's flaming... Yeah, and 3 years later, FINALLY, a FAQ came out to rectify the situation - that says - you guessed it that a dwarven flame cannon - actually counts as being a flaming attack? Wow, who would of guessed that one.

Really - apply common sense.. Otherwise you get hit with the CLUB!!!

chivalrous
08-04-2009, 09:49
LM Skavenpelt Banner:

The unit is in Frenzy. Doesnīt say which unit though, so I think itīs safe to assume it means every unit.:D

Ah, now the trouble with that particular interpretation is that it says unit in the singular.
to affect every unit on the table, it would have to be units in the plural.

Ultimate Life Form
08-04-2009, 09:58
Ah, now the trouble with that particular interpretation is that it says unit in the singular.
to affect every unit on the table, it would have to be units in the plural.

What the...? Where are you from? How can you argue against RAW? Whenever I have a close combat, I look at the Unit, then I check my magic items, and one of my items clearly says the unit is in frenzy! Cīmon, this is in fact even easier than what people write about the Slann!:D

theunwantedbeing
08-04-2009, 10:07
No, just wounds dealt by the weapon itself.
Going off common sense, not RAW.

Necromancy Black
08-04-2009, 10:43
Okay, so I had a discussion with a friend last night about this.

Sword of Justice is an Empire magic weapon that allows the model to reroll failed wounds. Since there's no condition to those rerolls (eg. "in combat", "in shooting" etc) would he thus be able to use it for spells cast by a wizard equipped with it (eg. a fireball that rerolls failed wounds)?

To me, it's clear that the designers intended it to be a "HTH only" ability. But by RAW it seems he's right.

Can anyone add to this conundrum?

The Father of Blades in the WoC book has been FAQ'd to say that "rolls of 1 to hit" does indeed mean any rolls, even those to hit the bearer from a shooting attacking.

Following this, I see no reason not to let the Sword of Justice allow reroll failed wound rolls from a spell.

EvC
08-04-2009, 11:56
General context with a magic weapon is "when using that weapon in close combat". However, there are a couple of FAQed-up examples that tell otherwise, Father of Blades and a Wood Elf item in particular. So maybe, who knows. Unlike other rules lawyerisms, this one can be used quite amusingly. It also applies to the Chaos weapons "Rending Sword", which has pretty much zero use, unless given to a Sorcerer to re-roll magic (Or Bloodcurdling Roar attacks- fancy that), plus the Sword of Striking with Distendible Maw (which you will never see used even with that possible bonus).

Nicha11
08-04-2009, 12:53
Going off common sense, not RAW.

Indeed the two are too often mutually exclusive.

Bac5665
08-04-2009, 13:19
No they're not. Stop being melodramatic. At least 90% of the rules in the BRB make good sense and are fine to play with.

Also, RAW can be used to say that these weapons only effect CC, at least for some of them. The Skavenpelt banner says the "the unit" It's pretty damn clear that that refers to the unit with the banner. Given two arguments that are both RAW, you don't have to pick the obviously wrong one.

Nicha11
08-04-2009, 13:26
No they're not. Stop being melodramatic. At least 90% of the rules in the BRB make good sense and are fine to play with.



Can't a denizen of Warseer make a witty but cnynical remark about Warhammer these days?

Bac5665
08-04-2009, 14:12
Everyone knows that jokes must have smilies. :D:cries::p <= See?

Sorry, I'm quick to defend RAW and it gets a bad rap way too often, so I didn't stop to think you might be joking.

Keller
08-04-2009, 15:21
General context with a magic weapon is "when using that weapon in close combat". However, there are a couple of FAQed-up examples that tell otherwise, Father of Blades and a Wood Elf item in particular. So maybe, who knows. Unlike other rules lawyerisms, this one can be used quite amusingly. It also applies to the Chaos weapons "Rending Sword", which has pretty much zero use, unless given to a Sorcerer to re-roll magic (Or Bloodcurdling Roar attacks- fancy that), plus the Sword of Striking with Distendible Maw (which you will never see used even with that possible bonus).

I guess I will have to start loading up on Sword Gnoblars for my Ogres then. Sword Gnoblars grant an additional S2 attack, but my great weapon adds +2S to all attacks by that model. A couple more S4 attacks could be useful... :rolleyes: :D:D

I really wish some of these rules made more sense and were not open to such abuse. I'll admit it would actually make some of these weapons more useful if their effects worked on the model in general, but I really don't think its the right thing to do. Luckily, no-one has tried to pull anything like this yet in our group.

Zoolander
08-04-2009, 21:59
is it time to bring out the other silly worded items?! i think it is...

weeping blade. 'each unsaved wound is multiplied into d3 wounds.' yay for everything on the table doing d3 wounds!!

blade of nurglitch - 'Enemy models lose 1 point of toughness from their profile for each unsaved wound they suffer, to a minimum of Toughness 1.' no mention of where the wound comes from by RAW must mean every wound the enemy models take...

and thats just the skaven book.

anyway.
in the cases with weapons you can generally assume their affects apply only to the attacks made with that weapon. unless they specifically say otherwise.

*sorry for the kinda silly post i'm tired*


Ok that was hilarious. Thank you!! Proving once again, common sense isn't very common!


Mind you, they DID rule that it made sense alchemically for a suit of armour to deflect a flaming cannonball, but not a normal one.

Don't even get me started on that one... :rolleyes:


Can't a denizen of Warseer make a witty but cnynical remark about Warhammer these days?

Only if you stop calling yourself a denizen... or if you are, you need to leave Warseer more often... :p Kisses...

WarlockOMork
09-04-2009, 00:30
Great thread, really made my day.
and yeah the flaming cannonball deflection thing is just silly.

Yay for common sense, wish it was more common. :p

In short completly agree.

Edit: @ Sulla(aka the next post),
a lot less so then a flame resistant suit, making the wearer immune to entire cannonballs just because they are on fire.

Another edit: i do like the idea of caster weapons tho, i could use an extra slot to put magical offensive items. (would allow for some more variation, and maybe a fun combo)

sulla
09-04-2009, 00:41
Great thread, really made my day.
and yeah the flaming cannonball deflection thing is just silly.


You don't think the idea of a cannonball on fire was silly in the first place? :rolleyes:

nosferatu1001
09-04-2009, 05:38
Nope, flaming weapons are quite common in ancient battles. Rocks covered in pitch and set alight, for example. Plus it is runic i.e. not normal fire

rottahn
09-04-2009, 05:57
you can argue that the sword of justice lets you reroll to wound, but it doesnt work. you actually have to be using the weapon to get the bonus. and since its a melee weapon, there you go. the only exception to this would be the father of blades, and since the WoC FAQ writer doesnt play WHFB, he wrote it incorrectly.

if you DO argue that you can use it, i will bring my WoC army and i get to reroll to wound(there is a WoC equivalent to sword of justice) with all my tzeentchy fireballs. it opens up a can of worms, where you dont want to go. its like the whole skavenpelt banner for the lizardmen, where the skink BSB tries to frenzy the whole army.

chivalrous
09-04-2009, 20:06
What the...? Where are you from? How can you argue against RAW? Whenever I have a close combat, I look at the Unit, then I check my magic items, and one of my items clearly says the unit is in frenzy! Cīmon, this is in fact even easier than what people write about the Slann!:D

I'm from 5th edition when the rules took up a whole page but left no room for ambiguity ;)






(disclaimer: I'm not saying it was without it's problems )

sulla
13-04-2009, 01:14
Nope, flaming weapons are quite common in ancient battles. Rocks covered in pitch and set alight, for example. Plus it is runic i.e. not normal fire


On an open battlefield? Only in movies I think (unless you can cite a historical text where they use flaming weapons in a pitched battle). I can't think of a single one.

As for flaming cannonballs, I'd like to see one stay flaming after you fire it. Sure magical ones could, but then what's to say the magical rune doesn't turn it into pure flame?

Bac5665
13-04-2009, 02:04
Siege of Constantinople in 626. Lots of burning pitch if I remember correctly.