PDA

View Full Version : Treeman Ancient + Beffudlement



Pulsks
17-06-2009, 04:51
Is it legal for an ancient to purchase that spite since he already has a bound spell(s) on him?

Spirit
17-06-2009, 05:09
You know,i never though about this but your very right, the treeman cannot have more than one bound spell just like any other model.

Pulsks
17-06-2009, 05:30
Darn. D:
Can't the warrior priest have the boundspell items though?

WLBjork
17-06-2009, 05:38
The FAQ part 2 changes the rules so that
A character cannot have more than one magic item containing a bound spell.

So the Ancient can purchase the Spite (unless other rules forbid this) and the Warrior Priest can purchase a bound spell magic item.

Pulsks
17-06-2009, 05:52
Yaaaay, I don't have to use an eraser. :D
Thank you. I just wanted to double check.

EvC
17-06-2009, 12:31
This is one of those cases where a pre-existing FAQ answer exists, telling us that the Treeman can't have it- even though by the more recent errata, it would be perfectly fine. In conclusion: dunno.

Gazak Blacktoof
17-06-2009, 12:52
I'd ignore the FAQ and use the errata. As with the tomb-king-casket-of-souls-FAQ-answer the rules changes invalidate the question/answer.

Witchblade
17-06-2009, 14:50
Seems like another GW rule mess-up to me. Errata > FAQ and recent > older, so you can take bound spells by RAW. RAI, it seems fine as well. I mean, Treeman Ancients are often the only likely candidates for the spites anyway.

Chicago Slim
17-06-2009, 16:59
Yeah, I was pretty annoyed last May, when the Empire and Wood Elf FAQs both came out, with completely contradictory answers to the same basic question (Question: Can a character who has a Bound Spell from an innate ability, not a magic item, carry a magic item that confers a Bound Spell? Empire: Yes. Wood Elf: No.)

At that point, it was clear that Treeman Ancients could not take either of the Bound Spell Spites, since the Empire FAQ couldn't be applied to them, and their own FAQ was quite clearly-stated (even if in obvious conflict of rules-logic with another FAQ). This February, of course, the FAQ2 came out, and is in clear conflict with the WE FAQ. Here's the specific wordings:



Can Treeman Ancients have spites that are bound spells as they already have the Tree
Singing bound spell?
A. They cannot, as a character can only have one bound spell.




ERRATA: Page 121, Bound Spells, last paragraph. Please replace the entire paragraph with:
‘A character cannot have more than one magic item containing a bound spell.’


Now, generally speaking, when rules are in conflict, I prefer to apply the most recently-written ruling. That said, there's the bit that says that army books over-rule the BRB, when in conflict (though it's not clear that army book FAQs over-rules the BRB...)

Given that the FAQ2 is providing an ERRATA, which actually changes the BRB rule on which the WE FAQ ruling is based, I would suggest that the ONLY reasonable interpretation is to ignore the (now clearly outdated and therefore faulty) WE FAQ: based on the (ERRATA'd) BRB and the WE Army Book, it's clear that Treeman Ancients can carry one Bound Spell Spite.