PDA

View Full Version : Bretonnian item combo dilemma



Oberon
18-05-2007, 16:39
The thing is, you have to use any magic item you take->if you take a magical shield, you canīt use your GW. Now if I take enchated shield (magical item) and sword of the quest (magical item), do I have the choise of one or two hands with the sword anymore? If I choose to use it with 2 hands, I couldnīt hold the enchanted shield, right?

Atrahasis
18-05-2007, 16:40
The only items you are forced to use are magical weapons and magical body armour.

Magical shields can be slung on teh shoulders or ground in combat just like normal ones.

Griefbringer
18-05-2007, 16:52
Actually, I do not recall any rule explicitely stating that you have to use magical body armour if you have one.

Oberon
18-05-2007, 17:10
Thank you. After another, more intense reading session I didnīt find any rule saying I must use magical items. Except weapons. So I have to use that sword of the quest, but can opt not to use enchanted shield. Yay.

Atrahasis
18-05-2007, 17:23
Actually, I do not recall any rule explicitely stating that you have to use magical body armour if you have one.

Armour grants a save. Nothing in the rules grants permission to forego that save.

Griefbringer
18-05-2007, 18:39
True, but whether the armour in question is magical or not is rather irrelevant.

Then again, I really cannot see a reason why somebody would not want to use a suit of armour they bought for a character.

Atrahasis
18-05-2007, 19:10
True, but whether the armour in question is magical or not is rather irrelevant.Its very relevant when the OP asks which magic items a model is forced to use.

Then again, I really cannot see a reason why somebody would not want to use a suit of armour they bought for a character.[/QUOTE]

Sickel
21-05-2007, 15:57
The sword of the quest can be one handed anyway so it doesnt matter if u use both, personally i never buy enchanted shields or magical shields anyway for I think they are a waste of points

Kotobuki
22-05-2007, 04:16
Sickel, in 7th edition, they (magic shields) can be combined with Hand Weapons for the additional +1 'parry' bonus to your save. Which means they're worth taking now, at least for foot characters.

Additionally, the Sword of the Quest says that it may be used as a Hand Weapon, leading me to believe that you can use it with the rules for Hand Weapons, and get the +1 'parry' bonus when used in conjunction with a shield. Making a Questing Knight on foot with a 2+ Armor save. Not too bad for a guy that ignores your armor saves.

Krankenstein
22-05-2007, 17:42
Additionally, the Sword of the Quest says that it may be used as a Hand Weapon, leading me to believe that you can use it with the rules for Hand Weapons, and get the +1 'parry' bonus when used in conjunction with a shield. Making a Questing Knight on foot with a 2+ Armor save. Not too bad for a guy that ignores your armor saves.

That is possibly RAW. I doubt this was the intent behind the wording of Sword of the Quest. Most likely whoever wrote it was just thinking about WYSIWYG problems as questing knights figures have obviously two-handed weapons.

Atrahasis
22-05-2007, 17:50
That is possibly RAW. I doubt this was the intent behind the wording of Sword of the Quest. Most likely whoever wrote it was just thinking about WYSIWYG problems as questing knights figures have obviously two-handed weapons.

Well, magic shields didn't grant the "parry" bonus in 6th when the sword was conceived, so that was at least not the intention.

However, trying to divine anything beyond that is futile.

Oberon
22-05-2007, 17:53
Well, Iīll be using the SoQ 2handed while Iīm feeling like it then, saying to myself the rules allow me to do so even though I happen to have enchanted shield too.

ANOTHER QUESTION!
Is the virtue taken into the 100 or 50 points limit for paladins&Lords? For BSBs it especially mentions you can have any banner and up to 50points of virtues (only one of course), but the regular description is a bit unclear to me. Can I take 50 points of magical gear, and a virtue for a paladin?

DeathlessDraich
22-05-2007, 17:59
Actually, I do not recall any rule explicitely stating that you have to use magical body armour if you have one.

True. A character does not have to use a magical shield or helm but has he really got a choice with body armour?
The situation is broadly similar to not using Poisoned attacks or Killing blow in combat.
It's not stated in the rules but can the model really prevent itself from using these abilities?

A very unlikely situation? Well, it may happen in the situation below.

A refusal to use magical armour could happen if the player wants to allow his character to be slain to prevent pursuit when it is clear that combat will be lost.
Pursuit may take the enemy into a friendly unit who loses the benefit of charging in the next round.

In a case like this I think the magical body armour must be incorporated into the armour save even if the magical helm or shield is not.

theunwantedbeing
22-05-2007, 17:59
You can spend 50pts on magic items and virtues.
If he is the battle standard bearer he may be given a magical banner and take a virtue of upto 50pts.

He isnt allowed to take 50pts of items,then a virtue.

Oberon
22-05-2007, 18:00
Ok. Then the Gromril Great Helm must go. +1 CR&3+ save >2+ rerollable save
*edits his new list for the weekend*

Krankenstein
23-05-2007, 13:11
However, trying to divine anything beyond that is futile.

So you claim. I disagree.

Atrahasis
23-05-2007, 13:37
So you claim. I disagree.

Unless you have a direct line to Anthony Reynolds then there is no way you can know his intent. I doubt, given his record, even he knew what he intended.

Griefbringer
23-05-2007, 14:03
I doubt, given his record, even he knew what he intended.

This sums up quite well many of the discussions about Bretonnian rules. :cool:

Krankenstein
23-05-2007, 14:05
Unless you have a direct line to Anthony Reynolds then there is no way you can know his intent. I doubt, given his record, even he knew what he intended.

I cannot know, but I can guess. And I did.

When the rules are vague, contradictory or downright odd, we have to look elsewhere for sources of interpretation. Soft sources if you will. “The rules must stand alone” is excellent advice to a game designer. It is poor advice to the player who finds that the rules actually doesn’t stand alone.

Atrahasis
23-05-2007, 14:20
The rules in this case do stand alone - there's no reason to believe that he intended not to grant the bonus due to hand weapons; he certainly intended to grant the bonus for Great Weapons, and you have no problem with that.

Your "guesses" at his intent signify nothing beyond your distaste for the application of the bonus.

lparigi34
23-05-2007, 15:23
...Additionally, the Sword of the Quest says that it may be used as a Hand Weapon, leading me to believe that you can use it with the rules for Hand Weapons, and get the +1 'parry' bonus when used in conjunction with a shield. Making a Questing Knight on foot with a 2+ Armor save. Not too bad for a guy that ignores your armor saves.

Questing Knight on Foot?

My question, since I believe that Bretonnian Lords and Paladins must always ride a Barded Warhorse, so the discussion of how to apply the HW+Sh bonus in this case is not applicable.

Atrahasis
23-05-2007, 15:27
He can be dismounted from his pegasus/hippogriff.

Griefbringer
23-05-2007, 15:38
Also, there is the Virtue of Empathy that allows a character to fight dismounted.

Krankenstein
23-05-2007, 16:33
Your "guesses" at his intent signify nothing beyond your distaste for the application of the bonus.

Or so you "guess". Wrongly.

I don't see any problem with all of this, other than it's all based on a fumbled wording. It's hardly an overpowering option. I play a mean bretonnian army and I would never use the Sword of the Quest. 50 points is way too much even if you figure in hand weapon-shield / two hand weapon bonuses.

Atrahasis
23-05-2007, 17:17
I don't see any problem with all of this, other than it's all based on a fumbled wording.What makes you think its "fumbled"? Its perfectly clear.

Krankenstein
23-05-2007, 19:19
Enough ”room for an argument” sketch for today, I think.

Atrahasis
23-05-2007, 19:49
There's no room for argument. Hand weapons have special rules and great weapons have special rules. The SotQ can benefit from either depending on the player's choice.

Baindread
23-05-2007, 22:55
Placing ones interpretation of a rule as the intent of the designers won't fly far I'm afraid.

Atrahasis
23-05-2007, 23:24
Placing ones interpretation of a rule as the intent of the designers won't fly far I'm afraid.

Who are you addressing this to?

lparigi34
24-05-2007, 03:19
I do believe that even when the Sword of Quest can be used as a hand weapon it still negates armour saves and its attacks count as magicals, so I still argue against getting the HW+Sh bonus.

Kotobuki
24-05-2007, 05:16
But, it is used as a "Hand Weapon," and do not 'hand weapons' have special rules for use in conjunction with a shield? It may also be used as a "Great Weapon" are there not rule for 'great weapons?' Why should it get the rules for one, but not the other?

GranFarfar
24-05-2007, 10:16
I do believe that even when the Sword of Quest can be used as a hand weapon it still negates armour saves and its attacks count as magicals, so I still argue against getting the HW+Sh bonus.

Back in 6th edition the HW+Sh bonus would not have been applied, since this was only valid for mundande weapons and shields. This is no longer the case, now magical hand weapons keep the mundande properties as do magical shields. Meaning a hero on foot with SotQ and shield can indeed use the HW+Sh bonus.

But I think SotQ is one of a kind, or is there any other magical hand weapon I am not aware of?

ehlijen
24-05-2007, 12:22
I believe there are some woodelf pairs of handweapons and I think a tombking one. But those are all pairs that have to be used together, the Sword of the quest is indeed unique as the only single magic hand weapon. (kick me if I'm wrong)

As for the hw+shield thing: seeing as it needs to be a bret lord to be able to get the bonus (heroes don't have the points for both the sword and the dismounting virtue) and he needs to be on foot (less mounted knights is what everyone facing the brets wants after all) and he needs to forfeit the +2 str his weapon could be giving him, then really, what is the problem with him having a 3+ (or possibly 2+ but no more, can't combine the enchanted shield with the great helm anymore) armour save.
He'd be far scarier on the horse any day. In fact, apart from the GW only being +1 str on the horse (and that's assuming you're not using the shield) he'd better in all respects than on foot, even in an infantry unit.

lparigi34
24-05-2007, 18:46
Back in 6th edition the HW+Sh bonus would not have been applied, since this was only valid for mundande weapons and shields. This is no longer the case, now magical hand weapons keep the mundande properties as do magical shields. Meaning a hero on foot with SotQ and shield can indeed use the HW+Sh bonus.

But I think SotQ is one of a kind, or is there any other magical hand weapon I am not aware of?

Here we go back again to the problem of inconsistent wording acroos the books. So I really do not get it, Why is the "Blade of Sea Gold" of the High Elves different in any respect to the "Sword of Quest" when used as a Hand Weapon?

So as rules go now in 7th, every weapon should now be specified to be of a particular mundane type when it losses its magical character.

If the Sword of Quest can be used with the shield to grant the +1 HW&Sh bonus, I guess it can also be used with another hand weapon granting an extra attack to the Knight...

Just thoughts...

theunwantedbeing
24-05-2007, 18:59
There are plenty of magical weapons that are stated to be
"great weapons"
or
"2 hand weapons"
or
"lance"
I dont see why its so absurd to think that there shouldnt be an item thats stated to be a "hand weapon".
Either way,the only effective way to get the bonus is to use a lord on foot.

Griefbringer
24-05-2007, 20:47
If the Sword of Quest can be used with the shield to grant the +1 HW&Sh bonus, I guess it can also be used with another hand weapon granting an extra attack to the Knight...


Except that as a magical weapon, it cannot be combined with additional mundane hand weapon.

Baindread
25-05-2007, 00:46
Who are you addressing this to?

To Krankenstein surely since what I said cannot be applied to what you are saying:)

WLBjork
25-05-2007, 06:45
The pertinent rule, which so far doesn't seem to have been quoted is:


A character that has a magic close combat weapon cannot use any other close combat weapon, although it can carry a shield as normal. No character can carry more than one magic weapon. Magic Weapons always ignore any special rules that apply to an ordinary weapon of the same type unless otherwise specified in the description of the weapon.

The Sword of the Quest specifies it can be used as a Hand Weapon, therefore it can be used to gain the "Fighting with a hand weapon and shield (infantry)" bonus.

Lord Zarkov
25-05-2007, 08:37
A character that has a magic close combat weapon cannot use any other close combat weapon, although it can carry a shield as normal. No character can carry more than one magic weapon. Magic Weapons always ignore any special rules that apply to an ordinary weapon of the same type unless otherwise specified in the description of the weapon.
The Sword of the Quest wording appears to state that it counts as a hand weapon (so over-rules the second sentance) but nowhere in it's rules does it allow the first to be broken, thus you can only use the magic item. Although you can of course get the +1sv with a shield if the wording is as described.

DeathlessDraich
25-05-2007, 10:58
The Sword of the Quest specifies it can be used as a Hand Weapon, therefore it can be used to gain the "Fighting with a hand weapon and shield (infantry)" bonus.


The Sword of the Quest wording appears to state that it counts as a hand weapon (so over-rules the second sentance) but nowhere in it's rules does it allow the first to be broken, thus you can only use the magic item. Although you can of course get the +1sv with a shield if the wording is as described.

"cannot use special rules for that weapon unless specified" - summarised rule

The special rules for HW and shield , 2 HW cannot be used if magical hand weapons are involved unless these special rules are mentioned in the magic weapon rules.

Comparing this with the magical lances in the Brettonian army - they all specifically specify "+2S when charging" even though it is clear they are 'lances'.
In fact the Brets magical Morning star has a different strength bonus and technically, is not a morning star.

Having said that it is debatable whether a mundane hand weapon and a magical shield benefits from HW and shield but I do think a magical hand weapon and mundane shield does not

Atrahasis
25-05-2007, 12:03
So it doesn't get +2S/Strikes Last when used as a great weapon DD?

If the name of the mundane type it is being used as is sufficient specification to gain the GW rules, then it is sufficient to gain the hand weapon rules. Anything else is overcomplicating the issue, and frankly daft.

Krankenstein
25-05-2007, 12:43
Placing ones interpretation of a rule as the intent of the designers won't fly far I'm afraid.

Placing ones poor reading of other's posts as objective sounding gobbledygook won’t fly very far I’m afraid.

Strike that. You can in fact get endless mileage from fake objectivity and not reading other’s posts. Carry on.

Baragash
25-05-2007, 18:22
Back in 6th edition the HW+Sh bonus would not have been applied, since this was only valid for mundande weapons and shields. This is no longer the case, now magical hand weapons keep the mundande properties as do magical shields. Meaning a hero on foot with SotQ and shield can indeed use the HW+Sh bonus.

But I think SotQ is one of a kind, or is there any other magical hand weapon I am not aware of?

It did apply in 6th. The reason magic weapons in general couldn't claim the parry bonus in 6th was because they were not hand weapons, nothing to do with them being magical.

GranFarfar
26-05-2007, 08:19
It did apply in 6th. The reason magic weapons in general couldn't claim the parry bonus in 6th was because they were not hand weapons, nothing to do with them being magical.

If that is the case, I guess my memory serves me wrong.

DeathlessDraich
26-05-2007, 08:29
So it doesn't get +2S/Strikes Last when used as a great weapon DD?

If the name of the mundane type it is being used as is sufficient specification to gain the GW rules, then it is sufficient to gain the hand weapon rules. Anything else is overcomplicating the issue, and frankly daft.

Personally, I would make an exception for the Sword of Quest because of the way it is phrased:

"may be used as" - 'used as' dictates its characteristics
"a hand weapon or a great weapon"

The rules quite clearly limit magical weapons characteristics to their descriptions only.

If the magic weapon rules do not mention +2S and strikes last for magical great weapons, then it cannot function as such.
If the magic weapon rules do not mention the ability to use the hand weapon and shield bonus then it cannot function as such.

However I think there is enough in the Sword of Quest rules to suggest it has all the bonuses for hand weapons and great weapons depending on how it is 'used'.