PDA

View Full Version : Tzeentch Champions



Naxeur
09-02-2007, 11:51
If I give a champion of Tzeentch a shield, does it negate his spellcasting ability?

Atrahasis
09-02-2007, 11:57
No. See the rules for the mark of tzeentch.

Wings of Doom
09-02-2007, 16:39
Actually, it wouldn't anyway, as there is no 7th edition rules prohibiting the use of armour and magic.

Makarion
09-02-2007, 19:21
If that is true, it would be very peculiar that the Empire book includes a magic armour that specifies that mages can use it and still cast spells (Armour of Tarnus).

Reinnon
09-02-2007, 19:29
while theres nothing in the rules thats state "a wizard can't cast spells with armour", the fact that 90% of wizards don't have armour in their equipment list means they can't take armour unless overwise noted in the rules of the item.

chaos armour doesn't stop casting, and the rules of tzeentch actually state they can still cast

Shallowain
09-02-2007, 19:36
what you seek is hidden on page 121 in the rulebook. There it sates, that magical armour can only be given to characters that *can* already wear mundane armour. So no armour of any kind for wizards EXCEPT the item states otherwise.

Neknoh
09-02-2007, 20:01
As said, the rules for Chaos Magic states that Sorcerors of Tzeentch (what a character of Tzeentch is turned into when marked) can cast even though wearing armour other than Chaos Armour

Shallowain
09-02-2007, 21:12
And as Tzeentch wizards are usually "normal" champions with additional magical powers they retain the option to get a shield. so there is no problem.

The rule considering casting with armour is no more, it has been reduced to the equipment options of the individual character.

Festus
10-02-2007, 09:53
Hi

If that is true, it would be very peculiar that the Empire book includes a magic armour that specifies that mages can use it and still cast spells (Armour of Tarnus).
It is nice that there is a suit of Armour for Wizards - explicitly allowed by the item's description. Makes a knightly Wizard very viable: Spell caster with 3+ save, anyone? :)

Festus

Wings of Doom
10-02-2007, 13:36
...magical armour can only be given to characters that *can* already wear mundane armour. So no armour of any kind for wizards EXCEPT the item states otherwise.


How do you logically come to that second scentance? It should be 'no armour of any knind for wizards unless they have the option or come with mundane armour' (e.g. Chaos Sorcerers).

Normal Chaos Sorcerers could buy a magical armour that is not a suit of chaos armour and still cast spells normally from it. There is no rule prohibiting this! Choas armour doesn't stop casting- no armour stops casting! Tzeentch characters can cast whilst wearing any armour- any wizard can cast whilst wearing armour! The rules for chaos armour make an exception which is now a null point, as it is no longer an exception and is a universal point.

Atrahasis
10-02-2007, 13:51
How do you logically come to that second scentance? Name a wizard that can take mundane armour.

Flame
10-02-2007, 14:05
Chaos Exhalted/Aspiring with Book of Secrets can take a shield.

erm..... thats about it I think (barring BD VC lords/chaos scorcerers that have it anyway)

Ganymede
10-02-2007, 14:13
The big example would be in the high elf book.

There is an item that turns a fighty hero into a level one spellcaster.

There is also an item that turns a fighty hero into a level one spellcaster who can wear armor armor.

Wings of Doom
10-02-2007, 14:25
Name a wizard that can take mundane armour.

Chaos Sorcerers, Wargors/Beastlords with the Book of Secrets.

Atrahasis
10-02-2007, 14:36
Sorry, I misread your post. You are of course correct.

Irakaz
10-02-2007, 17:02
Chaos Sorcerers, Wargors/Beastlords with the Book of Secrets.
Beast characters cannot take enchanted items

Shallowain
10-02-2007, 17:53
maybe I should say it different.

Show me a regular wizard straight from the armybook, who has the option to take armour (except chaos sorcerers).

Those who do get their spellcasting ability from a magic item do NOT count, as the magic item then determines what they can and can not do.

Ganymede
10-02-2007, 18:37
So instead of showing you a Scotsman, you want us to show you a True Scotsman?

Shallowain
10-02-2007, 18:56
So instead of showing you a Scotsman, you want us to show you a True Scotsman?

:confused: :wtf:

Aelyn
10-02-2007, 19:36
:confused: :wtf:
It's a reference to a logical fallacy, where the proponent of a particular argument redefines his terms in such a way that there's no way to interpret his argument as wrong, simply because it's meaningless.

"No Scotsman likes Goulash."
"My father's Scottish, and he loves Goulash."
"Well, no true Scotsman likes Goulash!"

How can you argue with that?

DeathlessDraich
10-02-2007, 19:48
I know a true Scotsman who likes Goulash but he's Irish! :p
Only a true Irishman will understand that joke!

Shallowain
10-02-2007, 22:37
:confused: :wtf:

it seems this gets now really weird...

Wings of Doom
11-02-2007, 10:43
Beast characters cannot take enchanted items

Whoops..

Why 'Except Chaos Sorcerers'?

Shallowain:
Blood Dragon lords can take shields.
Chaos Exalted Champions can take the Book of Secrets and a shield.

Though I've never met a scottish vampire...

EvC
11-02-2007, 11:54
It's all very simple, really.

If a spellcaster's description says they can take armour, then they can take armour and also wear magic armour.

If it does not say that, then they generally can't.

However, some items of magic armour do indeed say that they can be worn by wizards without hindering their ability to cast spells. This last bit is merely extraneous information however: all you need to know is that the armour's description says, "may be worn by spellcasters" and thus they can!

Here's a quick question for someone to show they know more than me: if a character is already wearing armour (For example, a Blood Dragon Vampire Lord who comes with Plate Armour 4+ save as standard), are they allowed to replaced that regular armour or perhaps even add additional magic armour for the benefits? (Continuing the example, can that Vampire take magic Bone Armour which ignores the first wound suffered but is destroyed, and if so does he still have the benefits of the mundane Plate Armour afterwards?)

Festus
11-02-2007, 12:04
Hi

No, a model may only ever wear one suit of armour, magical or mundane.

BRB, p.121

Festus (Do I get a cookie now? :D )

Wings of Doom
11-02-2007, 12:15
However, some items of magic armour do indeed say that they can be worn by wizards without hindering their ability to cast spells.

In 7th Edition, no armour hinders a wizards ability to cast spells.


This last bit is merely extraneous information however: all you need to know is that the armour's description says, "may be worn by spellcasters" and thus they can!


The armours description or rules don't have to say anything to be worn by spellcasters. The spellcaster simply has to have the option for armour, or come equipped with armour.

So, hypothetically if in some future armybook there is a spellcaster character who comes with light armour, he will still be able to cast spells.

There is no rule prohibiting a spellcaster casting whilst wearing armour of any kind.
It is simply that in most armybooks in the current edition, most spellcasters do not come with or have the option to buy mundane armour or, therefore, magical armour.

Von Wibble
11-02-2007, 12:21
The big example would be in the high elf book.

There is an item that turns a fighty hero into a level one spellcaster.

There is also an item that turns a fighty hero into a level one spellcaster who can wear armor armor.

In both cases they explicitly state in the description whether they can wear armour. An example where an ordinary mage is given the option of armour doesn't exist here.

Loremaster states "Note a character with Loremaster cannot wear armour and cast spells"

The wording seems to imply agreement with 6th ed. I can't help but wonder if there will be a change to this in the next high elf book.

Radiant Gem of Hoeth otoh is allowed with arnour.

I agree with wings of doom. I feel the rule has been obmitted from the brb because it is unnecessary due to options currently available to wizards, and if for whatever reason gw want warrior wizards, there is now the option to have them without needing to add a special rule negating a rule that doesn't apply to anyone!

EvC
11-02-2007, 14:29
However, some items of magic armour do indeed say that they can be worn by wizards without hindering their ability to cast spells.

In 7th Edition, no armour hinders a wizards ability to cast spells.

I feel like I've just been interrupted here! And uselessly so!



This last bit is merely extraneous information however: all you need to know is that the armour's description says, "may be worn by spellcasters" and thus they can!


The armours description or rules don't have to say anything to be worn by spellcasters. The spellcaster simply has to have the option for armour, or come equipped with armour.

Are you actually aware of what you are arguing here? You are saying that a regular Wizard who doesn't come with options for armour (i.e. nearly all of them) may not take a suit of magic armour, even if it the description for a certain type of magic armour says it can be taken by a Wizard!


There is no rule prohibiting a spellcaster casting whilst wearing armour of any kind.
It is simply that in most armybooks in the current edition, most spellcasters do not come with or have the option to buy mundane armour or, therefore, magical armour.

Thanks, but I already know this :angel:

Also, Festus, you'll get your cookie, but you must answer the rest of the query first! If a Blood Dragon comes equipped with Full Plate Armour automatically, and no model may have more than one more suit of armour, does that mean it is impossible for that Vampire to wear magic armour?

Festus
11-02-2007, 14:37
Hi

No, you will exchange your Armour for the Magic Item, as is normal.
He will not keep his Plate, but will wear the Magic Armour instead.

PS This applies to all characters who come readily equipped with armour and buy a suit of magical armour. Empire Knights or Brettonian charactes spring to mind here, but equally Chaos Characters of various kinds.

Festus

EvC
11-02-2007, 14:43
Well that makes sense, I hope there are no RaW issues for certain people to bring up from it though...

Wings of Doom
11-02-2007, 14:58
Are you actually aware of what you are arguing here?


I am arguing that it is possible for a wizard to cast spells whilst wearing armour, which in your previous post showed a complete lack of knowledge thereof implying that armour hinders wizards casting capabilities-



However, some items of magic armour do indeed say that they can be worn by wizards without hindering their ability to cast spells.

-This scentence implies very obviously that you believe items of magic armour can be worn by wizards that do hinder there ability to cast spells, which is complete and utter rubbish under the seventh edition rules. So, if you feel interrupted and needlessly so I hope I have justified myself and educated you.


You are saying that a regular Wizard who doesn't come with options for armour (i.e. nearly all of them) may not take a suit of magic armour, even if it the description for a certain type of magic armour says it can be taken by a Wizard!

Indeed, I'm saying a wizard who does not come with the option for mundane armour may not take magic armour, even if that armour specifies that it may be worn by wizards- Rulebook, page 121:


A character that is not allowed to wear ordinary armour cannot be given magical armour/helms (unless differantly specified in the relevant armybook)

So unless the armybook specifies that the wizard may take magical armour, it may not even though the armour specifies it can be worn by wizards- it must be specified that the character can wear magical armour before he can choose to buy a suit of magical armour. No rule saying the character (most probably under the characters section in the armybook) can take armour or magical armour, no magical armour for the character.

You, as far as I can tell, are arguing that, for example, a Bray Shaman could buy a suit of Chaos Armour becuse the Chaos Armour specifies it can be worn by spellcasters- this is wrong, as the Bray Shaman does not have access to magic armour of any kind due to not having access to mundane armour of anykind. If under 'Bray Shaman' in the armybooks special rules it said 'Even though a Bray Shaman cannot access mundane armour, it can access magical armour', then this would be perfectly legal, but there being no such exception in the erlevant armybook, it is not.

Festus
11-02-2007, 15:13
Hi

Indeed, I'm saying a wizard who does not come with the option for mundane armour may not take magic armour, even if that armour specifies that it may be worn by wizards- Rulebook, page 121
This is hardly a sophisticated statement. And so wrong, too... :(
Wizards may indeed wear certain Suits of Armour without being able to select them as a normal option. The aforementioned Empire Item *Armour of Tarnus* is such an example, as is the *Bone Armour* of the VCs.

BRB, p.120, left column, second paragraph, last sentence.

Festus

Wings of Doom
11-02-2007, 15:14
I fold.

I'm right otherwise though. :p

EvC
11-02-2007, 17:29
I am arguing that it is possible for a wizard to cast spells whilst wearing armour, which in your previous post showed a complete lack of knowledge thereof implying that armour hinders wizards casting capabilities-

"However, some items of magic armour do indeed say that they can be worn by wizards without hindering their ability to cast spells."

-This scentence implies very obviously that you believe items of magic armour can be worn by wizards that do hinder there ability to cast spells, which is complete and utter rubbish under the seventh edition rules. So, if you feel interrupted and needlessly so I hope I have justified myself and educated you.

Don't be so willing to pick a fight that you'll invent an opponent's argument for them, as it's especially foolish when you get it so badly wrong. The part you quoted there I was talking about magic armour, and then I said after that the statement that these items say that wizards can still cast spells wearing them is redudant: THAT means that it's not necessary. Why is that? Because Wizards can cast spells wearing any type of armour. That's right: I was arguing the same as you up until you stepped in and lodged your foot in your mouth.

I'm glad that you've realised your statement that Wizards can't wear magic armour that the magic item descriptions say they can wear was wrong though. It's a shame Festus got there first but hey :)

feintstar
12-02-2007, 04:56
Erm... So what was the final verdict? Just, "read the item descriptions?"

Makarion
12-02-2007, 08:15
Hi

It is nice that there is a suit of Armour for Wizards - explicitly allowed by the item's description. Makes a knightly Wizard very viable: Spell caster with 3+ save, anyone? :)

Festus

The Armour of Tarnus isn't bad, : light armour with a built-in 5+ ward save. Put your mage on a barded warhorse and you've got a 4+ armour, 5+ ward save. Still not perfect, but for a wizard lord it's likely worth the 35 points.

Of course, a lot of people will be tempted to use an Arch Lector for use as an armoured Lord-level caster. It's not a good comparison, but he can field his own brand of destruction when riding the war altar, with 2 bound spells plus 1 off the Lore of Light per turn (plus impact hits and 2 attacks on his stat line).

EvC
12-02-2007, 14:14
Erm... So what was the final verdict? Just, "read the item descriptions?"

Read item descriptions and army list entries, and don't let previous editions' rulings confuse you :)

Wings of Doom
12-02-2007, 16:49
Exactly. Basically, do it by the rules, those being:

You can only buy magic armour if you have an option for mundane armour or the armour itself specifically says you can buy it for that character.

There is nothing other than this generically stopping wizards casting spells whilst in armour, unless stated in the rules (loremaster, for example).

NakedFisherman
12-02-2007, 18:18
Read item descriptions and army list entries, and don't let previous editions' rulings confuse you :)

Armour didn't prevent casting spells in 6th Edition, either.

Atrahasis
12-02-2007, 18:59
Armour didn't prevent casting spells in 6th Edition, either.

"Fleeing or dead wizards, or those with any type of armour (except a barded steed), cannot attempt to cast spells."

6th ed. pp135

EvC
12-02-2007, 21:37
Well that's that taken care of :D

eldrak
13-02-2007, 15:22
It should be "Armour didn't prevent casting spells in early 6th Edition, either."

EvC
13-02-2007, 17:26
Hmm, indeed, that part about the armour doesn't appear anywhere in my edition. I wonder why everyone thought armour stopped spells from being cast then??

Atrahasis
13-02-2007, 18:08
Hmm, indeed, that part about the armour doesn't appear anywhere in my edition. I wonder why everyone thought armour stopped spells from being cast then??

It was one of the first errata issued in 6th edition, and was a rule in both 4th and 5th (and probably earlier, but its a looooong time since I looked at those rules).