PDA

View Full Version : Does Arcane Unforging 'completely' destroy magic armour?



Sinsigel
08-05-2013, 14:54
This is the situation i experienced few hours ago.
My HE archmage had successfully cast Arcane Unforging on DE dreadlord on pegasus,
destroying his Armour of Darkness which gives 1+ armour save that cannot be modified.
Now, the dreadlord only had sea dragon cloak, so he had a total of 4+ armour save against ranged attacks.(cloak and bonus for being mounted)

The DE player and I however had short debate. He thought the arcane unforging might nullify the special effect of magic armour(1+ save),
but the dreadlord would still get some armour save because the magic armour now turned into mundane one.
(He was thinking about old 7th ed Vaul's Unmaking which merely turned magic items into mundane item of same kind)

I insisted that dreadlord only gets save for cloak and for being mounted because unlike Vaul's Unmaking, the new Arcane Unforging
specifically states that the magic item is "destroyed".(i.e. not turning into mundane item of same type)
In the end, we played following my opinion but I looked at the BRB to ensure I wasn't wrong.

And the evidence which I found to be supporting my claim was the rule written on magic armour section.
The rule stated that character can only have one set of each armour piece(e.g. only one item for each armour, shield), and magic armour
replaces any mundane item of same type. This means that if the aforementioned armour of darkness is destroyed,
the dreadlord then has no armour of any kind, except shield and cloak.

However, there might be some odd clauses in both BRB and official errata/FAQ. Are there any statements that either supports or disapproves my opinion?

Shiro_the_red
08-05-2013, 17:07
I see it just like you do and I wasnīt able to find a rule that says otherwise.
Arcane unforging is pretty unique. Itīs a damage spell that destroys magical gear. I donīt think that there is any kind of rule that defines this brand new spell.

bigbiggles
08-05-2013, 17:24
I think with its current wording the armor is gone. Better for us, but I liked vauls unmaking more

Artinam
09-05-2013, 08:04
I agree, destroy is destroy, nothing is left.

TheDungen
09-05-2013, 09:48
yeah I agree with bigbiggles, the unmaking made more sense, but destroyed is destroyed i guess.

sholcomb
10-05-2013, 06:57
One other interesting related idea is that a magical banner held by the BSB could be destroyed. Thus a spell to get rid of the Battle Standard itself!

bigbiggles
10-05-2013, 07:02
One other interesting related idea is that a magical banner held by the BSB could be destroyed. Thus a spell to get rid of the Battle Standard itself!
Well now there is a tricky idea...

yeknoMehT
10-05-2013, 07:34
Well now there is a tricky idea...

I don't think it works sadly - the battle standard is not an item - just an upgrade (like buying a wizard an extra magic level). The magic banner is, sure, but if it is destroyed the 'BSB' part of the character remains. If it were an 'item', then the 25 points you pay to get a BSB would be refunded if you 'replaced' it with a magical version - which is not the case.

Artinam
10-05-2013, 08:05
Good question though, would a standard stop being a standard when its destroyed. I'd actually say yes...

The BSB is more tricksy..

yeknoMehT
10-05-2013, 08:16
Good question though, would a standard stop being a standard when its destroyed. I'd actually say yes...

The BSB is more tricksy..

I dunno - its the same deal - you pay 10pts or whatever for the dude with a flagpole, then you buy him some magical bits to dangle on it.

It does however bring an entertaining picture to mind of a standard bearer finding his magical flag burned to a crisp by the spell, so he rummages around, finds some soiled underpants and waves them around on the end of a stick (or his flagpole if he still has it...)

theunwantedbeing
10-05-2013, 08:32
You don't buy the BsB as part of the item, so it won't be destroyed with the item.

sholcomb
10-05-2013, 16:43
I think it is obvious that the 25 points is for the "Standard". And that the magic standard you may purchase is indeed the very same standard you paid 25 points for. I don't see how the fact that you spent 25 points beforehand makes an difference one way or the other.

I think the only arguments you can employ to argue that the Battle Standard would not be destroyed is;

1. That the BSB is carrying around two standards, one a magical banner, and one which gives the re-rolls (and that we have been modeling everything wrong from the beginning).
2. It is the presence of the bearer himself (and not his standard) that is inspiring the troops to re-roll their failed tests.
3. The word destroyed in the Arcane Unforging rules really means negated.

Common sense says that the "magic banner" and the Battle Standard are one and the same. When you bought a magic banner, you were upgrading your mundane banner to a magic banner, not getting an additional banner.

It also makes perfect sense per the fluff. The banner is torn apart in magical flames, and the guy is left holding a stick. Quite uninspiring for the troops around him.

yeknoMehT
10-05-2013, 16:49
Think carefully. What does BSB stand for?

dementian
10-05-2013, 18:04
I think it is obvious that the 25 points is for the "Standard". And that the magic standard you may purchase is indeed the very same standard you paid 25 points for. I don't see how the fact that you spent 25 points beforehand makes an difference one way or the other.

I think the only arguments you can employ to argue that the Battle Standard would not be destroyed is;

1. That the BSB is carrying around two standards, one a magical banner, and one which gives the re-rolls (and that we have been modeling everything wrong from the beginning).
2. It is the presence of the bearer himself (and not his standard) that is inspiring the troops to re-roll their failed tests.
3. The word destroyed in the Arcane Unforging rules really means negated.

Common sense says that the "magic banner" and the Battle Standard are one and the same. When you bought a magic banner, you were upgrading your mundane banner to a magic banner, not getting an additional banner.

It also makes perfect sense per the fluff. The banner is torn apart in magical flames, and the guy is left holding a stick. Quite uninspiring for the troops around him.

As to 1. Looks like FW is on to something :P 170591

Lord Inquisitor
10-05-2013, 18:11
Can anyone post the exact wording of Arcane Unforging?

Texhnolyze
10-05-2013, 19:01
Can anyone post the exact wording of Arcane Unforging?

Well it's not the whole spell description but I think it's the relevant part:

If the target has one or more magic items, randomly select one of them - that item is immediately destroyed on a roll of 2+ and can not be used for the rest of the game.

warplock
10-05-2013, 19:25
The item is certainly completely destroyed - the wording is very clear. So you lose your armour / shield / great weapon or whatever. What an unsavoury spell. However, how it could affect BSBs is unclear. If my BSB's magic banner is destroyed you would have a very hard time convincing me I can't use the BSB rerolls any more. A Battle Standard is not an item which is purchased, it is a role which you pay points to upgrade one model to fulfil. You can destroy all his items, his magic banner, his mount, reduce all his stats to 1 and pour paint remover over him (nooo not the undercoat!) but he's still my BSB. Certainly the option of destroying a BSB in this manner seems horrendously overpowered.

Lord Inquisitor
10-05-2013, 19:27
Thanks, Texhnolyse.

I think I'm on the side of the BSB/standard not being destroyed. You upgrade a trooper or a hero to be a standard bearer and then you buy a magic banner as a magic item. The spell destroyed the magic item not the basic upgrade.

But that's a very "rulesy" way of looking at it. I can see the argument that the magic banner is the banner and when it is destroyed the banner is gone.

bigbiggles
11-05-2013, 02:27
I would say that a destroyed magic standard on the bsb would still allow him to give rerolls. For all the reasons listed above, and it feels too cheaty and unintended

sholcomb
11-05-2013, 06:02
Think carefully. What does BSB stand for?

So yekoMehT, you are going with option 2, that "the bearer himself (and not his standard) that is inspiring the troops to re-roll their failed tests." Okay, do you really think it is the bearer that is inspiring the re-rolls? Or perhaps you think it is RAW? I think it is worth looking at the "Hold Your Ground!" rule.

"To represent the battle standard's steadying presence, friendly models within 12" of the Battle Standard Bearer re-roll failed Leadership tests of any kind . . ."

And so it is apparent that it is the standard itself, and not the heroic nature of the guy wielding it that is giving the troops confidence. But of course you could come back and point out that the RAW states that one only has to be withing 12" of the Battle Standard Bearer (not the Battle Standard) to apply the rule. I feel like this was simply written this way for ease of description. I might also argue that if a Battle Standard Bearer loses his Battle Standard, he is no longer a Battle Standard Bearer, is he? He is not bearing anything.

All in all, I think it is clear that you are buying a Battle Standard for your hero for 25 points. You also have the option to upgrade that very same banner to a magical banner if you choose to. Common sense says it is the same banner. Think of it this way. If your hero had the option of getting heavy armor for 25 points, but then you also have the option of upgrading that armor to magic armor. All of the sudden that armor is susceptible to Arcane Unforging, and can be destroyed by the spell. Once affected by the spell, your armor is destroyed. You don't have heavy armor left. Why would a Battle Standard be any different?

Regardless of where we land on this, if we are in agreement that the standard itself is destroyed, there is certainly no Combat Result Bonus, as all mentions in the rule are to the standard itself, and not the bearer.

Was this the intent of the spell, who knows. My bet is that GW never thought about it one way or the other. But that never stopped them from allowing Butchers from taking magic armor, or Dark Elf sorceresses from casting spells they have no hope of reaching the casting cost of after these loopholes were discovered. I understand people who don't play High Elves don't want this to be a rule, because it hurts and seems cheesy, but that is not the way rules are interpreted. And at the end of the day, even with destroying the Battle Standard, it not as bad as a lot of spells already out there.

yeknoMehT
11-05-2013, 09:01
So yekoMehT, you are going with option 2, that "the bearer himself (and not his standard) that is inspiring the troops to re-roll their failed tests." Okay, do you really think it is the bearer that is inspiring the re-rolls? Or perhaps you think it is RAW? I think it is worth looking at the "Hold Your Ground!" rule.

"To represent the battle standard's steadying presence, friendly models within 12" of the Battle Standard Bearer re-roll failed Leadership tests of any kind . . ."

And so it is apparent that it is the standard itself, and not the heroic nature of the guy wielding it that is giving the troops confidence. But of course you could come back and point out that the RAW states that one only has to be withing 12" of the Battle Standard Bearer (not the Battle Standard) to apply the rule. I feel like this was simply written this way for ease of description. I might also argue that if a Battle Standard Bearer loses his Battle Standard, he is no longer a Battle Standard Bearer, is he? He is not bearing anything.

Yes, essentially, I do think it is the bearer themselves. If it were just the little flag that has the impact on the troops, you'd just stick the flag in the ground, so that it didn't matter if the bearer specifically died. The point is that the bearer is an important individual, shouting at the rest of the army to not leg it. The flag provides a sign of where he is, and gives the army a focal point.


All in all, I think it is clear that you are buying a Battle Standard for your hero for 25 points. You also have the option to upgrade that very same banner to a magical banner if you choose to. Common sense says it is the same banner. Think of it this way. If your hero had the option of getting heavy armor for 25 points, but then you also have the option of upgrading that armor to magic armor. All of the sudden that armor is susceptible to Arcane Unforging, and can be destroyed by the spell. Once affected by the spell, your armor is destroyed. You don't have heavy armor left. Why would a Battle Standard be any different?

Regardless of where we land on this, if we are in agreement that the standard itself is destroyed, there is certainly no Combat Result Bonus, as all mentions in the rule are to the standard itself, and not the bearer.

Was this the intent of the spell, who knows. My bet is that GW never thought about it one way or the other. But that never stopped them from allowing Butchers from taking magic armor, or Dark Elf sorceresses from casting spells they have no hope of reaching the casting cost of after these loopholes were discovered. I understand people who don't play High Elves don't want this to be a rule, because it hurts and seems cheesy, but that is not the way rules are interpreted. And at the end of the day, even with destroying the Battle Standard, it not as bad as a lot of spells already out there.

There is a very clear difference with magic armour. It explicitly is instead of a mundane suit of armour/shield. If you buy a suit of magic armour, you cannot also buy a non-magic armour to wear. You can still buy a shield, for example, but I'm sure you would agree that if your magic armour is destroyed, the non-magic shield you paid for is unaffected? The armour is not an 'upgrade' it is 'instead of' the mundane armour.

Consider as well, if the rules associated with a BSB were part of the magic banner, it would need to be part of the banner rules, which would then apply to non-BSB unit standards that could take said banner too - this would mean that a BSB carrying the scarecrow banner must have the same rules as a unit standard bearer carrying it, or any other magic standard! This is clearly incorrect. Compare with how the first word of every description of a magic shield is 'shield' to state that it is also a shield in addition to other magic abilities - we would expect to see a similar 'Battle Standard' or 'Standard' at the start of each magic banner description. We do not.

Conclusion: Magic banners can be destroyed, but are not what gives the +1 combat resolution, or the Ld test rerolls. These remain unless the banner is lost as a result of the 'last stand' special rule, or the Bearer is killed.

theunwantedbeing
11-05-2013, 11:15
You keep the BsB effect (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3180060a_WARHAMMER_RULEBOOK_v1.8_APRIL13.pdf).
(last page)

warplock
11-05-2013, 11:21
You keep the BsB effect (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3180060a_WARHAMMER_RULEBOOK_v1.8_APRIL13.pdf).
(last page)

Q: What happens if a magic item is destroyed by any means? (Reference)
A: All of the rules, bonuses, etc. granted by that magic item are lost, and have no further effect on the battle.

That's all I can see of relevance on the last page. How does that mean you keep the BSB effect?

yeknoMehT
11-05-2013, 11:25
Because the magic item is not granting you these bonuses. Otherwise it would be in their description.

Mr_Rose
11-05-2013, 11:28
Because no magic banner or other item grants the BSB effect. It is, in all cases I can think of, a special rule one model can buy, wholly independent of any magic.

Liber
11-05-2013, 11:57
Because no magic banner or other item grants the BSB effect. It is, in all cases I can think of, a special rule one model can buy, wholly independent of any magic.


Yes. A hand weapon is also 'wholly independent of any magic' so therefore only the magic component (bonus's etc. as the FAQ states) is destroyed.

sholcomb
11-05-2013, 16:42
The Combat Result Bonus Rule in the basic rulebook on page 106 clearly describes the Banner itself as giving the special rule. The Hold Your Ground! special rule clear about it being the banner itself that is providing the steadying presence, not the guy holding it. Please read the actual rule before making assumptions. Also, the BSB is either holding a mundane Battle Standard or magic Battle Standard, but not both. It is clear from the rulebook, that it is the standard that conveys the rules.

@ theunwantedbeing, I totally interpreted the FAQ the other way. All bonuses are lost, including the +1 combat bonus and Hold Your Ground! special rules. If a magic lance is destroyed, you are not left with a mundane lance, you are left with a hand weapon that all models automatically have as a spare, per page 88 in the BRB. All the bonuses of having a lance are gone.

yeknoMehT
12-05-2013, 08:40
The Combat Result Bonus Rule in the basic rulebook on page 106 clearly describes the Banner itself as giving the special rule. The Hold Your Ground! special rule clear about it being the banner itself that is providing the steadying presence, not the guy holding it. Please read the actual rule before making assumptions. Also, the BSB is either holding a mundane Battle Standard or magic Battle Standard, but not both. It is clear from the rulebook, that it is the standard that conveys the rules.

@ theunwantedbeing, I totally interpreted the FAQ the other way. All bonuses are lost, including the +1 combat bonus and Hold Your Ground! special rules. If a magic lance is destroyed, you are not left with a mundane lance, you are left with a hand weapon that all models automatically have as a spare, per page 88 in the BRB. All the bonuses of having a lance are gone.

Look this is getting silly. Where does the description of any magic banner tell you that you get a BSB reroll if you have it? Sure if my magic lance is destroyed I can't use it any more, but the great weapon I paid extra points for still works just great.

I can quote short sections of rules out of context to back my argument too:
"If a unit includes a standard bearer, it will be more determined than ever to beat its foe, and so adds +1 to its combat result"
"friendly models within 12" of the Battle Standard Bearer re-roll failed Leadership tests of any kind"

Also: are you reading the same rule book I am? Page 106 is about monstrous mounts unless you mean page 107, which is where my second quote comes from.

To clarify - that FAQ clearly states that effects granted by magic items are lost when they are destroyed. Nowhere does it say that the normal benefits of being a battle standard bearer are part of a magic banner. They are not effects from the magic item so are not lost when it is destroyed.

theunwantedbeing
12-05-2013, 09:05
@ theunwantedbeing, I totally interpreted the FAQ the other way. All bonuses are lost, including the +1 combat bonus and Hold Your Ground! special rules.

:confused: But the magical standard doesn't provide those bonuses.....

Bladelord
12-05-2013, 09:21
I believe we need a FaQ to solve this question, the rules+common sense is just too messy and grey area here.

thrawn
12-05-2013, 14:20
One other interesting related idea is that a magical banner held by the BSB could be destroyed. Thus a spell to get rid of the Battle Standard itself!

he has a point. what if you destroy someone's hand weapon, then he can't defend himself? I know it says destroy, but i'm thinking the item maintains it's mundane properties. I play HE so i'm not biased.

yeknoMehT
12-05-2013, 14:38
he has a point. what if you destroy someone's hand weapon, then he can't defend himself? I know it says destroy, but i'm thinking the item maintains it's mundane properties. I play HE so i'm not biased.

You always have another 'hand weapon'. If yours is destroyed 5 times in a row somehow, you've still got another one. For special magic weapons, like a magic spear, it includes the rules for a spear in the magic weapon effects, e.g. The first word of each magic shield in the rule book is 'Shield'

RejjeN
12-05-2013, 15:48
You always have another 'hand weapon'. If yours is destroyed 5 times in a row somehow, you've still got another one. For special magic weapons, like a magic spear, it includes the rules for a spear in the magic weapon effects, e.g. The first word of each magic shield in the rule book is 'Shield'
Or to be more precise, a magic weapon doesn't replace the "Hand Weapon", and as far as I know there is no way to destroy a Hand Weapon.

The Low King
13-05-2013, 19:57
So what happens if you target a dwarf runic warmachine with this spell?

Mr_Rose
13-05-2013, 19:58
You find out why Dwarves hate Elves.

theunwantedbeing
13-05-2013, 20:04
So what happens if you target a dwarf runic warmachine with this spell?

You'll get to knock the runes off it, so it can then splatter the guy/unit carrying the BotWD :P

Although I'm not sure the magical item destroying effect even happens if you don't manage to cause that first wound.
In which case it would be a waste to bother using it on any war machine when there are rune toting lords and thanes available instead :P

The Low King
13-05-2013, 20:07
You find out why Dwarves hate Elves.

What? we love elves, you guys are the only race we have ever won a war against.


You'll get to knock the runes off it, so it can then splatter the guy/unit carrying the BotWD :P

lol, fair enough

ihavetoomuchminis
15-05-2013, 08:52
but the warmachine would be destroyed...right?

yeknoMehT
15-05-2013, 09:05
but the warmachine would be destroyed...right?

Someone with the Dwarf Army Book will have to check exactly what you buy for a warmachine, and what it is classed as - generally I think they're referred to as cannons with runes on, but that might not be the exact wording of the rules.

If it's runes applied to the cannon (to make the warmachine itself a runic item) then I suspect it would destroy the whole warmachine.

Asensur
15-05-2013, 09:39
BSB and Standard bearer keep being so, even if the magic banner is 'destroyed'.

Reason 1: You pay the upgrade to be a standard/battle standard bearer. It is being a bearer that grant you those bonuses, not having a standard.

Reason 2: the FAQs says that a magic item destroyed stops granting its bonuses, nothing else. The item itself it is not removed from game, but disabled, and we have an example with Fozzrik's Folding Fortress.

Q: Can Fozzrik’s Folding Fortress be destroyed by spells or
special rule that destroy magic items? (Reference)
A: Only if the spell or special rule activates before it is
placed.

Bladelord
15-05-2013, 11:33
But then again if you destroy the standard the model's not a bearer anymore:P

The Low King
15-05-2013, 12:02
Someone with the Dwarf Army Book will have to check exactly what you buy for a warmachine, and what it is classed as - generally I think they're referred to as cannons with runes on, but that might not be the exact wording of the rules.

If it's runes applied to the cannon (to make the warmachine itself a runic item) then I suspect it would destroy the whole warmachine.

Engineering runes vary in their description; Some are inscribed on the warmachine, some on the ammunition and some are unspecified (and could be on other things).
This opens up a whole new problem: if the warmachine has one rune inscribed on ammunition and one on the machine itself does the target have to be randomised? And what happens if the spell causes all the warmachines runic ammunition to spontaneously melt? can the warmachine still fire?

This spell causes problems....

The bearded one
15-05-2013, 12:05
Being inscribed on ammunition or the warmachine itself is just fluff-description. In rulesterms either the warmachine has been upgraded with runes or it hasnt. All that needs to be checked is the exact wording of the text saying runic items are magic items.

Vipoid
15-05-2013, 12:06
If you use this spell to destroy Fencer's Blades, does the model still have paired weapons?

The Low King
15-05-2013, 12:18
Being inscribed on ammunition or the warmachine itself is just fluff-description. In rulesterms either the warmachine has been upgraded with runes or it hasnt. All that needs to be checked is the exact wording of the text saying runic items are magic items.

That passage is just saying that rule like magical attacks apply to runic weapons, nothing more. It is only a 'fluff description' because other than this spell the being inscribed on different parts of the warmachine makes no difference.


If you use this spell to destroy Fencer's Blades, does the model still have paired weapons?

Surely only one of the blades would be destroyed :p

furrie
15-05-2013, 12:23
seeing as the weapon are destroyed, you would lose the paired weapons.

Valden
15-05-2013, 12:26
I do not understand why some people think a battle standard bearer who is not bearing a battle standard is a battle standard BEARER. He has the ability TO BEAR, but after having the banner destroyed, he is not BEARING, and thus is not a BEARER. As much as it seems overpowered, I cannot see it any other way fluff or rules wise; hopefully GW will FAQ it.

Mid'ean
15-05-2013, 12:35
Cause he then takes his hat-shirt off and sticks it on his sword or whatever and rallies the troops. BsB it a upgrade that has absolutely nothing to do with any magical item/banner he has.

Valden
15-05-2013, 12:49
Cause he then takes his hat-shirt off and sticks it on his sword or whatever and rallies the troops. BsB it a upgrade that has absolutely nothing to do with any magical item/banner he has.

Where did you get that from? The BSB carries the General's personal heraldry; he bears a unique banner, and -specifically- it is the 'battle standard's steadying presence' not the bearer's that confers rerolls. I see no reason to think the banner -a unique item- can be assumed to be replaced by whatever garments the BSB happens to have about his person because the army book entry allows you to upgrade a model to a BSB. This simply allows the choice between a mundane banner or a magical banner; it is a unique item nonetheless.

The bearded one
15-05-2013, 12:50
Thinking in terms of the narrative and realism, the banner would be destroyed and there wouldn't be an army battle standard anymore and no rerolls. However ruleswise a model is upgraded to battle standard bearer, and this upgrade is accompanied with the model gaining the rules for rerolls. Reading the rules for BSBs the +1 combat resolution is derived from the banner itself specifically, but the rules for rerolls are less clear-cut written and can just as easily be read to be rules intrinsic to the bearer.

Valden
15-05-2013, 12:53
but where in the rules does it say that the bearer -and not the banner- confer rerolls?

The bearded one
15-05-2013, 13:05
"To represent the battle standard's steadying presence, friendly models within 12" of the battle standard bearer re-roll failed leadership tests of any kind, including panic tests, break tests, fear tests, rally tests and so on. This ability cannot be used if the battle standard bearer is himself fleeing - no one takes heart from the sight of a coward."

Think of it this way; if this spell destroys your bsb's magic banner, would you not still be able to reroll tests if you read the above lines? Specifically the one saying "friendly models within 12" of the battle standard bearer re-roll failed leadership tests of any kind". It doesnt say you need the banner for that re-roll ability to work, it just says you need to be in the vicinity of the bearer.

Vipoid
15-05-2013, 13:09
Cause he then takes his hat-shirt off and sticks it on his sword or whatever and rallies the troops.

General - "Sergeant Slowman, you recall that very fine and very expensive standard I entrusted you with?"

Sergeant - "Yes, General."

General - "Well, I can't help noticing that the aforementioned fine and expensive standard seems to be missing. And, in fact, appears to have been replaced by a pair of your trousers."

Sergeant - "Uh... yes sir. Very astute of you to notice, sir."

General - "So, Sergeant, what precisely happened to that very fine and expensive banner?"

Sergeant - "Well, sir, if you don't mind me saying, I think you made it a bit too fine. See, one of them pointy-eared blokes started saying something, and the whole banner just disintegrated."

General - "I see. And, you thought that the best way to keep the men's morale up... would be to replace said banner with a pair of your trousers?"

Sergeant - "Yes, sir. Thought I'd use a bit of the old ingenuity, sir!"

General. "I see. Well, as long as we remain behind them, I suppose it could work. So long as the men realise that retreating will bring them closer to your trousers, I'm sure they won't budge an inch. Carry on Sergeant."

Valden
15-05-2013, 13:14
"To represent the battle standard's steadying presence, friendly models within 12" of the battle standard bearer re-roll failed leadership tests of any kind, including panic tests, break tests, fear tests, rally tests and so on. This ability cannot be used if the battle standard bearer is himself fleeing - no one takes heart from the sight of a coward."

Think of it this way; if this spell destroys your bsb's magic banner, would you not still be able to reroll tests if you read the above lines? Specifically the one saying "friendly models within 12" of the battle standard bearer re-roll failed leadership tests of any kind". It doesnt say you need the banner for that re-roll ability to work, it just says you need to be in the vicinity of the bearer.

It's interesting, because I read this same quotation in the opposite way! "To represent the battle standard's steadying presence, friendly models within 12" of the battle standard bearer re-roll failed leadership tests..."

From the wording, it seems clear to me that the banner itself confers the re-roll, as the steadying presence comes from it, not the bearer. The bearer is referred to merely as a spacial reference; claiming he therefore has an innate ability seems a false reading: the re-roll is stated as coming from the banner, and the banner is clearly stated as a unique item that can only appear once in the army, as it is the General's personal heraldry. In short, the rule is contingent upon there first being a battle standard.

Mid'ean
15-05-2013, 13:31
General - "Sergeant Slowman, you recall that very fine and very expensive standard I entrusted you with?"

Sergeant - "Yes, General."

General - "Well, I can't help noticing that the aforementioned fine and expensive standard seems to be missing. And, in fact, appears to have been replaced by a pair of your trousers."

Sergeant - "Uh... yes sir. Very astute of you to notice, sir."

General - "So, Sergeant, what precisely happened to that very fine and expensive banner?"

Sergeant - "Well, sir, if you don't mind me saying, I think you made it a bit too fine. See, one of them pointy-eared blokes started saying something, and the whole banner just disintegrated."

General - "I see. And, you thought that the best way to keep the men's morale up... would be to replace said banner with a pair of your trousers?"

Sergeant - "Yes, sir. Thought I'd use a bit of the old ingenuity, sir!"

General. "I see. Well, as long as we remain behind them, I suppose it could work. So long as the men realise that retreating will bring them closer to your trousers, I'm sure they won't budge an inch. Carry on Sergeant."

Welll....I did think about going farther down the apparel line but didn't really want to go THAT far....:D....but +1 for the narrative. ROFLAO!!

yeknoMehT
15-05-2013, 14:04
It's interesting, because I read this same quotation in the opposite way! "To represent the battle standard's steadying presence, friendly models within 12" of the battle standard bearer re-roll failed leadership tests..."

From the wording, it seems clear to me that the banner itself confers the re-roll, as the steadying presence comes from it, not the bearer. The bearer is referred to merely as a spacial reference; claiming he therefore has an innate ability seems a false reading: the re-roll is stated as coming from the banner, and the banner is clearly stated as a unique item that can only appear once in the army, as it is the General's personal heraldry. In short, the rule is contingent upon there first being a battle standard.

I think a fairly reasonable breakdown of the sentence is as follows:

{To represent the battle standard's steadying presence,}{friendly models within 12" of the battle standard bearer re-roll failed leadership tests}

The first part is essentially fluff (both from the way it is worded - 'represent' is an important part of this; and from the fact that the second part makes perfectly good sense all by itself). The second part is the actual rules for 'Hold Your Ground' (since a "steadying presence" is not defined anywhere in the rules as having any particular effect...)

Valden
15-05-2013, 14:40
I think a fairly reasonable breakdown of the sentence is as follows:

{To represent the battle standard's steadying presence,}{friendly models within 12" of the battle standard bearer re-roll failed leadership tests}

The first part is essentially fluff (both from the way it is worded - 'represent' is an important part of this; and from the fact that the second part makes perfectly good sense all by itself). The second part is the actual rules for 'Hold Your Ground' (since a "steadying presence" is not defined anywhere in the rules as having any particular effect...)

Your position is reliant upon arbitrarily discounting aspects of the rules you do not consider to be relevant, whereas mine takes into account the entirety of the statement. In short, a rather weak objection. The purpose of the rule is to represent the battle standard's steadying presence; in absence of a battle standard, there is thus no purpose in applying this rule.

The bearded one
15-05-2013, 14:54
'To represent' kinda sounds like what it says on the tin to me. 'In order to represent the fluff effect' you must be within 12" of the battle standard bearer. An elf might've wrecked my banner, but reading the line I am still within 12" of the battle standard bearer, absence of a banner or not.

Bladelord
15-05-2013, 15:15
but reading the line I am still within 12" of the battle standard bearer, absence of a banner or not.

Standard gets destroyed so the character's not bearing any standard anymore though.

The bearded one
15-05-2013, 15:22
That's a reasoning from a fluff perspective. He is designated as 'battle standard bearer' simply as a rule. Is your general still the general if his army is destroyed? Is a dragon mage still a dragon mage if his dragon dies?

Valden
15-05-2013, 15:35
That's a reasoning from a fluff perspective. He is designated as 'battle standard bearer' simply as a rule.

No, it's reasoning from a reason perspective;). If he is not bearing a standard, he is not a battle standard bearer, period. By detaching the rules from what you blanket term 'fluff' (misleading, because fluff can range from a character's back story to the specific reason for the existence of a rule, as in this case) you have an interpretation that equates a man with a banner, which is ludicrous. The rule even makes clear that it is only a representation of the fact he is carrying a banner. A little pragmatism should lead you to the conclusion that that rule is not supposed to mean a man without a banner is a banner bearer, that's an oxymoron, and the general's heraldry is a unique item, be it mundane or magical.


Is your general still the general if his army is destroyed? Is a dragon mage still a dragon mage if his dragon dies?

Fallacy of equivocation.

The bearded one
15-05-2013, 15:51
Seems quite comparable to existing cases, like the text in the brb saying it takes two men to load a bolt thrower (and FAQing that's just flavor text and 1 crewmember is enough), or the text saying master runes are inscribed on army battle standards (and FAQing that's just flavor text, and they can be put on regular standards.) in this case it even points out that you need to be within 12" of the battle standard bearer in order to represent flavortext.

Nonetheless I'm making a U-turn on this issue, not because of the rules on BSBs in the brb, because I am still of the opinion those are not clear enough to exclude either possibility, but looking at the bsb box in armybooks. I checked the one in the high elf book and the way it is written the hero carrying the banner is not 'designated' as battle standard bearer, but simply allowed to carry it and referred to as the battle standard bearer from that point on (alternatively you could substitute it with 'that dude we just gave the flag to') indicating really only the banner makes him the battle standard bearer.

Vipoid
15-05-2013, 16:25
Is your general still the general if his army is destroyed?

Yes - he's just not a very good one. ;)

The bearded one
15-05-2013, 16:47
Yes - he's just not a very good one. ;)

You might say the same of the battle standard bearer. He's not very good at carrying the thing :p

sholcomb
15-05-2013, 18:58
This conversation is awesome!

I think the jist comes down to this. Is the term "Battle Standard Bearer" a title or a descriptive term?

If it is the first, BSB is a rank, and he is still the BSB when he goes to bed at night, and would inspire the troops even if he was naked. Hence, a Dragon Mage is still a Dragon Mage even if a dragon is killed out beneath him.

If it is the second, it is simply saying that he is the bearer of the battle standard, which is actually the thing inspiring the troops. Hence a Dragon Mage does not count as a monster after his dragon is killed out beneath him. No matter what he claims his title is, he doesn't get thunderstomps.

I am adult enough to understand that a logical argument can be made for either case, but I do think that the 2nd option more closely resembles what is meant to happen. I have also been playing Warhammer long enough to know that GW could go either way on this in an FAQ. I lean towards the Banner (an re-rolls) being destroyed, but if my opponent had a real problem with it, I would roll off.

theunwantedbeing
15-05-2013, 19:04
This conversation is awesome!

I think the jist comes down to this. Is the term "Battle Standard Bearer" a title or a descriptive term?

The spell destroys the item, and the +1 combat res for being a standard isn't part of the item's rules, nor is the re-roll ability from the battle standard.
So neither would be destroyed.

Similar deal with runes on a dwarven war machine.
The "war machine" part of the machine isn't part of the runes effect, so would not be destroyed.

Obviously from a fluff perspective things look rather different.

Asensur
15-05-2013, 19:10
So, are we still complaining about BSB and Arcane Unforging?

Stop focusing on the vocabulary/grammar used on the BSB/command group rules and go to Reference (Magic Items)

Does a magic weapon replace your mundane weapons? No.

Does a magic armour replace your magic armours/shields? Only if they are stated of being 'armour' or 'shield' themselves (specifically written in rules)

Does a talisman/enchanted item/arcane item replace your mundane anything? No.

Does a magic standard replace your mundane standard? No.

As it is not stated that a magic standard replaces a normal 'standard' anywhere, when a magic standard is destroyed its mundane part does not.

Stop thinking of RAI (Rules As Invented) and think of RAW (rules as written)

Spiney Norman
16-05-2013, 07:06
So, are we still complaining about BSB and Arcane Unforging?

Stop focusing on the vocabulary/grammar used on the BSB/command group rules and go to Reference (Magic Items)

Does a magic weapon replace your mundane weapons? No.

Does a magic armour replace your magic armours/shields? Only if they are stated of being 'armour' or 'shield' themselves (specifically written in rules)

Does a talisman/enchanted item/arcane item replace your mundane anything? No.

Does a magic standard replace your mundane standard? No.

As it is not stated that a magic standard replaces a normal 'standard' anywhere, when a magic standard is destroyed its mundane part does not.

Stop thinking of RAI (Rules As Invented) and think of RAW (rules as written)

Agreed, trying to push through a gamey rule like destroying a battle standard and justifying it with RAI is an amusing reversal, but sadly incorrect.

From the O&G book (because it is the only one I have handy)
"One bigboss of any type in the army can carry the battle standard for +25 pts. He may carry a magical standard (with no points limit)..."

There is no "he may replace the battle standard with a magical standard" so RAW a BSB with a magic standard does in fact have two flags, one with the magical effect and one with the hold ground rule. The situation is rather like a character that is wearing a mundane suit of heavy armour and the dragon helm, arcane unforging could destroy the dragon helm, but the character would still retain the effect of his mundane heavy armour.

I've looked through the rules for battle standards and magic standards and I can't find anything to suggest that a magic standard replaces the battle standard, its just that a model who is already carrying a battle standard may also take a magic one. Its worth mentioning that this is also the case with unit standard bearers that are permitted to take magic standards.

Note: arguing RAM (rules as modeled) will only attract a derisive response.

sholcomb
16-05-2013, 16:08
Saying that everyone here is just "inventing" rules is just a cheap jab and nothing more. Rules as intended frequently ends up becoming RAW via FAQ.

I think it is obvious to everyone here that GW did not consider the possibility of a banner being destroyed when writing the BRB. That is why the magic standards do not say "Standard" or "Banner" in front of their description. I think it is pretty silly to say that the magic standards are not technically standards, or that the Battle Standard is not technically a Standard. This is starting to sound like those arguments that a Daemon Prince was not a Daemon. Armor certainly does replace armor of the same type for the obvious reason that it is impractical to wear two sets of armor or carry two shields. The BRB specifically allows models to have multiple weapons, for the obvious reason that it is not impractical to carry two weapons. There is no such thing as a mundane talisman/enchanted item/arcane item. I think it is obviously impractical to carry two banners, and nobody outside this conversation ever thought there actually was two banners.

Asensur
16-05-2013, 16:17
Saying that everyone here is just "inventing" rules is just a cheap jab and nothing more. Rules as intended frequently ends up becoming RAW via FAQ.

I think it is obvious to everyone here that GW did not consider the possibility of a banner being destroyed when writing the BRB. That is why the magic standards do not say "Standard" or "Banner" in front of their description. I think it is pretty silly to say that the magic standards are not technically standards, or that the Battle Standard is not technically a Standard. This is starting to sound like those arguments that a Daemon Prince was not a Daemon. Armor certainly does replace armor of the same type for the obvious reason that it is impractical to wear two sets of armor or carry two shields. The BRB specifically allows models to have multiple weapons, for the obvious reason that it is not impractical to carry two weapons. There is no such thing as a mundane talisman/enchanted item/arcane item. I think it is obviously impractical to carry two banners, and nobody outside this conversation ever thought there actually was two banners.

Yeah, that is why warpflame is flaming thanks to the FAQs.

Or a boltthrower need 2 crew members to shoot.

Or killing blow works against characters riding monsters.

Etc.

Mid'ean
17-05-2013, 12:17
I think it is obviously impractical to carry two banners, and nobody outside this conversation ever thought there actually was two banners.

Well then I guess I'll have to tell my Ogre BsB he'll have to rip one of his banners off as it's impractical to be carrying both of them. Although I don't think he will take it very well.......:chrome:

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d161/kobahl/miscstuff005_zpsf9693158.jpg (http://s35.photobucket.com/user/kobahl/media/miscstuff005_zpsf9693158.jpg.html)