PDA

View Full Version : Lucky's Dirk



T10
14-05-2007, 15:32
... adds +1 Strength per magic item carried by the target character.

Is a used Dispel Scroll still carried by the character?

-T10

Avian
14-05-2007, 15:35
Yes. It does not say that it is destroyed after use, or that it no longer counts as magical.

T10
14-05-2007, 16:06
Hmf. I was hoping for more controversy.

:)

-T10

Jonke
14-05-2007, 16:58
The fluff says they crumble to dust after reading, thus the one use only.

Griefbringer
14-05-2007, 17:13
I would stick with Avian and say that they still count as magical items (presumably they also still count towards the number of VPs the character is worth).

Doc Havoc
14-05-2007, 18:13
The same would apply to Wollupa's One ht Wonder. It is a one use item but since it is a magic item you cannot switch weapons even after the magical attack is made. As such it will still allow you to count all of your attacks as magical in H2H.

Jonke
14-05-2007, 18:51
Yeah, I agree with Avian too, but since T10 is such a nice old chap I wanted to be nice.

Peace!

sds661
15-05-2007, 01:03
OK, I'll disagree with T10, someone has to do it.

In the case of "One hit wunda" I agree it remains a magic item (it still has the benefit of hurting ethereals for example) however to use a dispel scroll is to destroy it, as Jonke points out. So its gone.

For that matter, what about an item which has been magically destroyed (say by Vaul's Unmaking spell) are we going to say it counts as a magic item because you're still carrying its shattered remnants?

Controversial enough T10?

Avian
15-05-2007, 10:51
Destroyed is destroyed. I doubt you will have many objections to that. But as I said, the Dispel Scroll is not stated to be destroyed after use. Heck, my Shamans bring Dispel Snotlings (Orcs can't read!) with them into battle and rub their little heads to counter enemy magic. Very seldom do they rub their heads completely off. :p

T10
15-05-2007, 11:00
Perhaps they set them free? Or eat them? Crazy Orc shaman are known to do stuff like that.

-T10

Griefbringer
15-05-2007, 11:06
The fluff says they crumble to dust after reading, thus the one use only.

"or its writing fades to nothing"

So it is not necessarily destroyed - just that it cannot be used again in this battle (the wizard needs to go and scrible new letters on it to use it again).

Poomermon
15-05-2007, 11:48
What if I cast law of gold spell from lore of metal and my opponent nomitates an used dispel scroll? I would be very pissed if he tried to pull something like that off. I know that you are technically correct, but in this case I would use common sense and say dispel scroll does not count as magical item after used (its magic is expended).

VampireOfKhorne
15-05-2007, 13:36
What if I cast law of gold spell from lore of metal and my opponent nomitates an used dispel scroll? I would be very pissed if he tried to pull something like that off. I know that you are technically correct, but in this case I would use common sense and say dispel scroll does not count as magical item after used (its magic is expended).

Yeah, you would be able to nominate the used scroll. Your right though, that people do tend to get pissed when you do it ;) .


The fluff says they crumble to dust after reading, thus the one use only.

So, a magical pile of useless dust is still magical isn't it? :)

knightwire
15-05-2007, 15:24
I'm with the "It's gone" crowd. A used scroll, power stone, or anything that burned out shouldn't be counted for Lucky. :) (Or I should say wouldn't be counted in my group per our reading of the rules.)

sds661
16-05-2007, 00:41
So, a magical pile of useless dust is still magical isn't it?
No! (... the word "useless" is all you need to consider ...)

Also, if someone tried to nominate an expended/destroyed magic item as the target of the Law of Gold spell I would be seriously miffed. Fair dinkum, I can't believe that so many usually sane contributors here are seriously advocating this. Spirit of the Rules, lads, Spirit of the Rules ...

druchii
16-05-2007, 03:37
The fluff says they crumble to dust after reading, thus the one use only.


Here's the thing: That's fluff, not rules.

The rules never state that the item ceases to exist, function or count as a magical item.

"Common" sense would dictate that although the scroll has been used, the item itself is still magical. I'm quite sure you could quibble all you want about how fluffy it would be to write a dispel scroll on a pile of paper towls.

Obviously this is something that isn't clearly stated in the rules (go figure?), but I think it just clearly demonstrates how such little things crop up. Talk it over!

d

T10
16-05-2007, 08:27
I guess there isn't any hard-and-fast ways to determine the "life-span" of limited-use items beyond the point they are spent. I figure we'll be dealing with this on a case-by-case basis.

-T10

Artemis
16-05-2007, 11:03
Here's the thing: That's fluff, not rules.

The rules never state that the item ceases to exist, function or count as a magical item.

And the rules never state that the item continues to exist, function or count as a magical item.

My idea of common sense implies that a scroll is destroyed, perhaps even burninated, as a magic item when it is used.

The ring of volans is another example. When the spell stored within is cast, is it just another ring - not magical anymore - or is it a useless (pun....) magic item?

That's how I would play it, anyhow. I would be prepared to dice off, though, as I agree that the rules do not explicitly state what happens.

Festus
16-05-2007, 11:41
Hi

I think thoes are all still Magic Items.

Look at your Army List, and see how many Items there are. If a Wizard has two DMS, he has two items, read or not. If he has a sword and a ring, he has two items.

BTW: The DMS does neither crumble nor does the writing dissolve AFA the rules are concerned, there is nothing of it in the items description.

And what about one effect weapons? One-Way-Wunda of O&Gs? do they cease to be magical after the effect is used? Can you still harm Ethereals with them?

Festus

T10
16-05-2007, 12:10
How about the Mad Kap mushroom, then? :)

-T10

Braad
16-05-2007, 14:28
It's still inside the gobbo...

Well... as long as the gobbo doesn't explode.
But then there is no problem at all!

Well... for me there is of course, since usually it will be my gobbo.

Griefbringer
16-05-2007, 15:00
And the rules never state that the item continues to exist, function or count as a magical item.

Presumably, since the rules do not specify any change in the status (other than that the item cannot be used again during the same game), the status quo would stay as it is.

Otherwise, we would end up discussing whether giants still exist after moving, or archers existing after shooting - since the rules do not explicitely mention whether they exist or not after those actions. :D

Sanjuro
16-05-2007, 15:29
Otherwise, we would end up discussing whether giants still exist after moving, or archers existing after shooting - since the rules do not explicitely mention whether they exist or not after those actions. :D

So, if a giant falls down in the woods and nobody is there to hear it - did it really happen? RAW, I mean.

;)

Griefbringer
16-05-2007, 16:07
So, if a giant falls down in the woods and nobody is there to hear it - did it really happen? RAW, I mean.


The issue is better avoided by just side-tracking the discussion with claims that wood elves are beardy! :angel:

Sanjuro
16-05-2007, 16:08
The issue is better avoided by just side-tracking the discussion with claims that wood elves are beardy! :angel:

Good point - it's always worked for me!

knightwire
16-05-2007, 17:39
Otherwise, we would end up discussing whether giants still exist after moving, or archers existing after shooting - since the rules do not explicitely mention whether they exist or not after those actions. :D

Heh... a giant can still use his legs next turn, archers can still use their bows. You can't use a dispell scroll, power stone or a ring that burned out presumably because... wait for it... there's no magic left to use. :D

But hey, to each is own. I would probably not play against a guy that did that, you would so it's all good. ;)

VampireOfKhorne
17-05-2007, 13:53
Heh... a giant can still use his legs next turn, archers can still use their bows. You can't use a dispell scroll, power stone or a ring that burned out presumably because... wait for it... there's no magic left to use.

So after the archers fire on the last turn they simply disapear because they're not going to fire again? ;)

And you can use a burnt scroll again... to annoy people who want to cast law of gold on your mage. :)

DeathlessDraich
17-05-2007, 17:45
Who's Lurky and why are we commenting on his anatomy?:D

Festus
17-05-2007, 17:57
Hi

Who's Lurky and why are we commenting on his anatomy?:Derm... would you mind getting your brains out of your underwear and try to be a little less ... erm ... revolting ;)

:p

Festus

Omegakai
17-05-2007, 23:56
Worst bunch of lawyering I've seen in a while.
Since this is a new edition i will consider all errants for previous additions null and void.
no where (as far as i could tell) dose it say that an item with a once use only effect remains magic, also no where with in the rules dose it say used items not longer count as magic.
However using logic (in a game built on fairies, magic and dragons) one would Assume that USED is used.
The proof in this case lies on those wishing to claim that the item still exists after being used.
as Used implies being spent.
In the case of one hit wunda, madcap mushrooms or items that are based off of the number of x magic items, it would be against of spirit of the game too claim spent items counting towards such totals.
Remember that it was in the last edition errta that noted magic weapons remaining as magic after used, not this edition.
playing in such a lawyering way will have a negative effect on the game.
again this rule isn't clear cut. so sit down before the start of each game and discuss it. if you cant agree on who's interpretation is correct, then roll off.

Festus
18-05-2007, 05:26
Hi

So if a DMS does not exist anymore after its Magic is spent, how about a Magic Sword with a *one use only* effect? Does this vanish into thin air as well, wisecracker?
:eyebrows:

So much for *worst rules lawyering* ... :rolleyes:

Festus

Sanjuro
18-05-2007, 08:57
Hi

So if a DMS does not exist anymore after its Magic is spent, how about a Magic Sword with a *one use only* effect? Does this vanish into thin air as well, wisecracker?
:eyebrows:

It's concievable - the one hit wunda for example might explode from the tremendous strain of the strength of the hit (and on account on being nought more than a glorified club really). :)

But that's only fluff - I agree with you.

Artemis
18-05-2007, 12:46
Presumably, since the rules do not specify any change in the status (other than that the item cannot be used again during the same game), the status quo would stay as it is.

Otherwise, we would end up discussing whether giants still exist after moving, or archers existing after shooting - since the rules do not explicitely mention whether they exist or not after those actions. :D

The word that causes all these problems (and really annoying quasi-logic) is the word used. A narrow interpretation in this context gives the result that when an item is used, it's magic power cannot be used again that battle. A wider interpretation may lead towards the conclusion that when a one-use item is used, it is destroyed, and background-wise a new one will have to be made. This would give the effect that a used one-use item ceases to be a magic item in any respect after it is used.

I am not at all sure what is correct. Generally, a wide interpretation should be applied cautiously, and with great thought. In this case I am, instinctively, drawn towards this wide interpretation. That has to do a little with background, and a little with balance. It does not seem right that an item which no lunger functions magically should be considered a magic item. Secondly, it does not seem right that the successful casting of a spell should be thwarthed by a useless item.

Oh well, I don't know what's right. Sod it. I hope I never run into this situation on a table.

knightwire
18-05-2007, 12:49
Hi

So if a DMS does not exist anymore after its Magic is spent, how about a Magic Sword with a *one use only* effect? Does this vanish into thin air as well, wisecracker?
:eyebrows:

So much for *worst rules lawyering* ... :rolleyes:

Festus


Festus,

I'm usually right with you on your rules interpretations. But seriously, do you believe anyone is staying something pops out of existance? A magic sword would just be a sword at that point. A magic ring that burned out would be just a ring. The hieratic jar would still be a jar... They all exist, but no longer enchanted by what gave you that special ability to begin with. If you used it, it's gone. Not the item, the magic.

Doc Havoc
18-05-2007, 14:37
Well, the actual problem with the "no longer magic" argument is that there are no rules to support it.

If I have a dispell scroll or a One Hit Wonda I can show you where it is listed as a magic item in my army book/rulebook, etc. As such, regardless of the fluff, there is nothing that supports the idea that the item is no longer considered magical. Just becuase you used it doesn't mean it isn't magical. It just means the magic cannot be used again this battle for balance reasons.

Everyone keeps looking into fluff and assuming a lot to get to the point of their argument. One use items are one use for purposes of game balance.

If a BSB breaks and flees do you remove him from the table because he no longer has a battle standard? If a Level 1 wizard miscasts and can no longer cast any spells you don't remove him from the game, so there is no reason to do the same with magic items either. He still continues to be a wizard. All spells that affect wizards still affect him. He still generates dispell dice and power dice.

The bonus of one use items is that they are valuble items that are very useful for a small cost. The down side of this is they are magic items and can be affected as such.

The rules state quite plainly that these items are magical, but they may only be used once per battle. It can by justified by a variety of fluff reasons, but really doesn't matter. The rules say that they are magical and there is no rule to suggest they cease to be once used.

The "scrolls crumble to dust" argument is really no argument at all. What the rulebook actually says is
"Once a scroll is read, it crumbles to dust or its writing fades to nothing. Each scroll can therefore only be used once during the whole battle."

It is a fluff explanation of why you are able to only use an item once. Nothing more.

So if you are going to try and use the Law of Gold spell on someone you just need to pick your targets carefully.

Artemis
18-05-2007, 16:01
Well, the actual problem with the "no longer magic" argument is that there are no rules to support it.

If I have a dispell scroll or a One Hit Wonda I can show you where it is listed as a magic item in my army book/rulebook, etc. As such, regardless of the fluff, there is nothing that supports the idea that the item is no longer considered magical. Just becuase you used it doesn't mean it isn't magical. It just means the magic cannot be used again this battle for balance reasons.

Is that a definition of the word used, in the context of one-use magic items, from the rules? Or is it the definiton that you find to be the most correct?

Doc Havoc
18-05-2007, 17:34
It is a fact... nothing more. The rules list 1 use items as magic items. Period. There is no rule that says they are no longer magic items after they are used. Period.

If you read all of the rules under magic items in the rulebook it tells you all you need to know.

Is that clear and defined enough?;)

DeathlessDraich
18-05-2007, 19:01
Taking my head out of my underwear now Festus or is it underwear out of my head. :p

Yes, I agree the 'one use magic item' should be treated as non existent, once it is used because it eases game mechanics.

This is necessary especially for Magic weapons and armour although I can't think of any, off the top of my head other than Wollopa's which makes no difference when regarded otherwise.

Doc Havoc
18-05-2007, 20:47
Actually, to do so intentionally goes against the game mechanics. There is no rule that says an item no longer counts as magical after it is used. Be it a 1 use item or not.

Yet there are several instances when the existence of or the number of magic items makes a difference. Law of Gold being one, Lucky's Dirk being another. So in this case, I recommend follwing the rules. I see no proof that the designers intended differently.

So to answer the orignal question, yes, by the rules you count one use items for Lucky's Dirk or Law of Gold weather they have been used or not.

But like anything in this game you and your opponent can decide to play it however you like.

knightwire
18-05-2007, 21:33
Actually, to do so intentionally goes against the game mechanics. There is no rule that says an item no longer counts as magical after it is used. Be it a 1 use item or not.

That's your opinion as that's what this discussion is about.



Yet there are several instances when the existence of or the number of magic items makes a difference. Law of Gold being one, Lucky's Dirk being another. So in this case, I recommend follwing the rules. I see no proof that the designers intended differently.

So to answer the orignal question, yes, by the rules you count one use items for Lucky's Dirk or Law of Gold weather they have been used or not.

It amazes me that you would count a used dispel scroll for Law of Gold. Do you think that's what the designers of the spell had in mind as well? How can a one-use/burned-out item count when it's magic has been used? The point of successfully casting Law of Gold is to try denying you the use of a special magic item, not to fall victim to this goofy idea that it negates an item that no longer needs negating. Lucky's Dirk is meant to boost your attack against a magically decked out character. If that character has an item that is used or burned-out then he's not quite as decked out, hence Lucky's isn't either. C'mon Doc, let's not get pedantically fanatic and use a little descetion on what these things are trying to do. :)



But like anything in this game you and your opponent can decide to play it however you like.

Well this and your sig are two things we can agree on brother. ;)

Doc Havoc
18-05-2007, 22:46
What amzes me is how quickly you become so personal in your replies to people who disagree with you.

I have quoted the rules. That is not an opinion. That is what the rules froum is for... hence the name "Rules Forum" and not "Opinion Forum".

I don't know why you would be so amazed by my statements, especially since we have never met or played against one-another.

To answer your question, Yes, I do think that was thier intent. I do not think it was an ideal situation with so many different magic items that do so many different things, but it is a ruling that'd works best for the majority of situations. I also think that the person who wrote the rules for Law of Gold and Lucky's Dirk is not the same peson who wrote the rulebook. As such I think some things were overlooked. All we have are the rules as reference. And the rules are very clear.

knightwire
18-05-2007, 23:08
What amzes me is how quickly you become so personal in your replies to people who disagree with you.

What did I say that's 'personal' Doc? I'm stating my interpretation of the rules same as you.



I have quoted the rules. That is not an opinion. That is what the rules froum is for... hence the name "Rules Forum" and not "Opinion Forum".


You have quoted rules, and your opinion of their interpretation. And you didn't even do it correctly. You stated this: "Once a scroll is read, it crumbles to dust or its writing fades to nothing. Each scroll can therefore only be used once during the whole battle." is fluff. It isn't fluff, fluff is any non-rule text. That line is from the BRB rules for Scrolls in WFB. It applies to scolls and it's where you learn scrolls are only used once. Unless you're contesting that a dispel scroll is not a one use item, because it doesn't state that it is under it's own rule text on page 122. :rolleyes:



I don't know why you would be so amazed by my statements, especially since we have never met or played against one-another.

It's just a turn of phrase, if you took it personally that was not my intent at all.



To answer your question, Yes, I do think that was thier intent. I do not think it was an ideal situation with so many different magic items that do so many different things, but it is a ruling that'd works best for the majority of situations. I also think that the person who wrote the rules for Law of Gold and Lucky's Dirk is not the same peson who wrote the rulebook. As such I think some things were overlooked. All we have are the rules as reference. And the rules are very clear.

No, it's not automatically the ruling that works best just because you think so. Yes, exactly... they were not the same person which is going to lead to glitches from time to time. Which is why, when a rule isn't cut and dry, you try to decipher the intent. The whole reason there's a thread here is because the rule is quite clearly not clear. :)

I can understand where you're coming from with the exception of your stance that it's clear, cut and dry. The rules don't support one side any stronger then the other.

Festus
19-05-2007, 08:14
Hi

I still stand by my interpretation that -ruleswise -the items are still there after their effect has been used. In the rare case of a Magic Item and a Spell (those discussed here), it may even make a difference.

In the case of Ethereals, it makes a large difference with regards to Magic Weapons: The One-hit-Wunda can still hurt Ethereals before and after its effect is used (and while it is used of course), as it is a Magic Weapon and will stay a Magic Weapon regardless of anything else. So this one definitely is still around.

Why should a jar or scroll be any different?

Festus

PS: If I would still count the Scroll if the actual case of Lucky's Dirk came up is a different matter entirely. I probably let it slip generally - if not playing a cheesemongering, ruleslawyering ass like myself :p

Festus

Artemis
19-05-2007, 09:28
It is a fact... nothing more. The rules list 1 use items as magic items. Period. There is no rule that says they are no longer magic items after they are used. Period.

If you read all of the rules under magic items in the rulebook it tells you all you need to know.

Is that clear and defined enough?;)

No it is not. There is no rule that says that an item is not magic after it is destroyed either. But our (common, I believe) interpretation of the word destroyed leads us to the conclusion that it is no longer magic. And another thing; Can you destroy something which is not working? Isn't it, in a sense, already sort of ruined...?
I agree that the word used is not at all a clear-cut case, but I still mean that whatever conclusion is reached in this case, is based upon an interpretation of the word itself.

Krankenstein
19-05-2007, 10:06
In the case of Ethereals, it makes a large difference with regards to Magic Weapons: The One-hit-Wunda can still hurt Ethereals before and after its effect is used (and while it is used of course), as it is a Magic Weapon and will stay a Magic Weapon regardless of anything else. So this one definitely is still around.

Why should a jar or scroll be any different?


Well, it should be different exactly because the weapon (or the armor) might still affect the game, while scrolls are supposed to be out of the game for good.

Alas Games Workshop has not though about this, otherwise they would have spend a couple of lines defining two kinds of one-use, one that destroys the item, and one that just uses a one-use charge. Would be simple, really.

DeathlessDraich
19-05-2007, 10:49
Let me try another angle.

I agree that the rules do not state that a magic item of one use is destroyed [or not] immediately after usage.

However the magical properties of that item is for one use only.
It's magical properties can only last for the duration of its usage. Can it really remain magical after this 'one use'? -seems counter intuitive.

The Hieratic Jar becomes a normal jar after use.
Has the jar any use then or is a jar a hand weapon?:p (facetious question, do not answer please).

Wollopa's magical essence cannot be present after it has been used. I know the rules do not explicitly state this but I'm using the Ancestor Rune rules as precedent and support. - "the rune is expended".

Two more variations of the main theme worth considering:

1. If a Wizard with D scrolls and other magic items, is reduced to level 0, he "cannot use any magic items he is carrying". 'Lurky' will affect him then.

2. Is the term 'Magic Item' in Lurky's rules to be restricted to the items listed in 'Magic Items' chapter in rule books?
or should it be broadened to include any item which is magical e.g. some Undead weapons, Skaven weapons - Censers, 2HW of gutter runners etc.

Festus
19-05-2007, 11:32
Hi

A MAgic Item is a Magic Item, as of p.120 in the BRB, no problem at all... Wight Blades count as MAgic Weapons, a subcategory of Magic Items, hence they count for Lucky's as well.

On the point of the Runic Weapon: It is still a weapon with a Rune inscribed on it, hence it still is a MagicWeapon, and thus a Magic Item, according to the Dwarf AB, p.43. Having expended the Rune, does not end it being a Magic Item.

You are trying to throw aanother smoke bomb here... :D

Festus

DeathlessDraich
19-05-2007, 11:54
A runic item has a rune inscribed and [confers its magical properties to the item to make it magical].
The latter part is not exactly taken from the rules but is necessary to distinguish runic and non runic items.

The item I was referring to had only the Ancestral rune.

If the Ancestral rune is "expended", can it be regarded as still being magical or even existing or functioning as a rune.

It could be argued that the something is still inscribed but it cannot be a functioning rune and therefore by Dwarf rules, the item is no longer a magical item as it does not have the original Rune which has exact properties stated in the Ancestral Rune.

Sorry, but in this particular case, I feel the word 'expended' cannot be discarded or ..erm expended.:p