PDA

View Full Version : Lance and Magic weapons



The_Peacemaker
21-04-2011, 05:30
If I have a lord on a mount and give him a Lance and then give him a special weapon like sword of might does the rules for magic weapons mean he will never use the lance?

Seems Kinda odd since the lance would be used for charging.

Whats the rule regarding lances and magic weapons?

I ask cause i bought the empire general kit and I think that lance looks really cool but I want him equpied with a magic weapon as well for regular close combat.

Trains_Get_Robbed
21-04-2011, 05:58
Yes, it says in the rulebook that if you buy a lance, you must use it on the charge, then you switch to your other weapon if it is mundane, and takes no priority.

Korraz
21-04-2011, 08:12
He didn't ask that.

You always use the Magic Weapon. Always.

CaptainFaramir
21-04-2011, 08:14
You should still take the lance if:

a) the model with the lance looks cool; and/or
b) you are facing High Elves.

Grimmeth
21-04-2011, 10:27
However, the Warhammer rulebook does state that just because it's called a 'Sword of Ogre Strength' it doesn't actually have to be a sword, it could be a lance that has 'lost' it's Lance abilitiy but has gained the magic properties of it

Godgolden
21-04-2011, 11:19
However, the Warhammer rulebook does state that just because it's called a 'Sword of Ogre Strength' it doesn't actually have to be a sword, it could be a lance that has 'lost' it's Lance abilitiy but has gained the magic properties of it

Very good point, and cool!

TrojanWolf
21-04-2011, 11:28
If I have a lord on a mount and give him a Lance and then give him a special weapon like sword of might does the rules for magic weapons mean he will never use the lance?

Correct. Magic weapons are used regardless of anything else you're armed with, unless you lose your magic weapon. Example, a Chaos Lord with a magic weapon is hit by a Dwarf Lord with the Master Rune of Breaking. He loses the magic weapon, but can then use any mundane weapon that he has such as a lance.

Only Bretonnians get to use mundane lances on the charge and then go to a magic weapon, unless that's been faq'd since last I looked.

T10
21-04-2011, 21:13
However, the Warhammer rulebook does state that just because it's called a 'Sword of Ogre Strength' it doesn't actually have to be a sword, it could be a lance that has 'lost' it's Lance abilitiy but has gained the magic properties of it

Actually, the What's In A Name rule suggests that instead of a "sword" the weapon can be 1) an "axe", 2) a "hammer" or 3) any "other suitable hand weapon".

Claiming that your disenchanted Sword of Ogre Power is in fact anything else than a hand weapon, such as a lance or a crossbow, well, I think you'll find it hard to back that up.

GodlessM
21-04-2011, 21:30
Claiming that your disenchanted Sword of Ogre Power is in fact anything else than a hand weapon, such as a lance or a crossbow, well, I think you'll find it hard to back that up.

Why would he need to back up renaming or rewriting the fluff of his weapon to be another type of weapon? It has the same effect on the game so why does it matter?

Bac5665
21-04-2011, 21:33
Why would he need to back up renaming or rewriting the fluff of his weapon to be another type of weapon? It has the same effect on the game so why does it matter?

Well, if I ask you what your Saurus Oldblood is armed with and you say "crossbow" I think that might be confusing for some people.

Not saying that it should necessarily stop you if the fluff appeals to you, but it could be a little annoying to play against, in the face of such confusion.

GodlessM
21-04-2011, 21:59
Well he's hardly going to turn around and say he's armed with a Crossbow of Might to a player's face.

Bac5665
22-04-2011, 01:43
I would hope not!

But I do know a few people who might do something like that, wanting to make up rules to fit some story fluff or something. So I might happen!

GodlessM
22-04-2011, 02:13
Yes but I'm pretty sure that's not what Grimmith was talking about.

Iraf
22-04-2011, 04:40
Hmmm, that lance sure looks a lot like a fat spear to me. Wait a minute... spears are hand weapons. Call it the "Spear of Might".

ZoomDog
22-04-2011, 07:24
However, the Warhammer rulebook does state that just because it's called a 'Sword of Ogre Strength' it doesn't actually have to be a sword, it could be a lance that has 'lost' it's Lance abilitiy but has gained the magic properties of it

With the downside that it's really hard to imagine someone trying to clobber his opponent to death 2 turns after the charge. :P

Artinam
22-04-2011, 08:14
Bretonnians still are able to use their lance on the charge and then switch to a magic handweapon.

Note that unlike other armies, Bretonnian always have to use their lance (they don't drop in succesive turns).

King_Pash
08-05-2011, 15:46
Here's a question: if you have a magical lance, can you use your special weapon in the subsequent rounds of combat?

Here's the reasoning:

1) Charge in with the magical lance
2) As per pg 90 "A lance is only used in the turn.. charges. In subsequent turns the model uses its hand weapon"
3) As per pg 89 "If a magical weapon is somehow destroyed or rendered useless, the warrior will then use his special close combat weapon"
4) Warrior can use his special close combat weapon as the magical lance has been rendered useless.

Thoughts?

Gooner
09-05-2011, 00:29
I agree with that reasoning King.

AmundoClown
09-05-2011, 02:01
Hmmm, that lance sure looks a lot like a fat spear to me. Wait a minute... spears are hand weapons. Call it the "Spear of Might".

Since when were spears hand weapons? It says in the Empire rulebook that Spearmen carry both hand weapons and spears. In the 7th edition rulebook it says that "every model is assumed to be carrying a hand weapon of some kind" unless otherwise noted. It does not say that spears are hand weapons.

That rulebook also says that spears allow you to fight in two ranks (while on foot) or give strength +1 (while mounted), so they should really be separated from hand weapons.

This would be important when a spearman with a shield is fighting enemies to his front using his shield and spear. He would not get the extra +1 benefit for using shield and hand weapon. On the other hand, if he were to charge someone, he'd be wise to use his hand weapon to get this benefit, as the spear does not give any advantage to models that have moved during the turn.

Alcibiades
09-05-2011, 02:09
This would be important when a spearman with a shield is fighting enemies to his front using his shield and spear. He would not get the extra +1 benefit for using shield and hand weapon. On the other hand, if he were to charge someone, he'd be wise to use his hand weapon to get this benefit, as the spear does not give any advantage to models that have moved during the turn.

He might be wise to do so, but alas, he is unable, as a spear is a special weapon and therefore must be used in preference to his hand weapon.

AmundoClown
09-05-2011, 03:18
He might be wise to do so, but alas, he is unable, as a spear is a special weapon and therefore must be used in preference to his hand weapon.

That is interesting. Does that mean that it would be useless to give a Dwarf Warrior both a shield and a great weapon? The gw requires two hands, and the shield can only be used with the hand weapon. Is it then safe to assume that the gw is always preferred and that the shield is useless?

This problem might also arise with chaos warriors and a whole range of other models.

TrojanWolf
09-05-2011, 05:10
That is interesting. Does that mean that it would be useless to give a Dwarf Warrior both a shield and a great weapon? The gw requires two hands, and the shield can only be used with the hand weapon. Is it then safe to assume that the gw is always preferred and that the shield is useless?

This problem might also arise with chaos warriors and a whole range of other models.

Not really, since he can use the shield outside of combat. 4+ against ranged is better than 5+.

AmundoClown
09-05-2011, 08:04
Not really, since he can use the shield outside of combat. 4+ against ranged is better than 5+.

Of course. Why didn't I think of that. I'm getting rusty. Too much focus on Stirland, perhaps.