PDA

View Full Version : Wizards in armour??



FatOlaf
10-06-2007, 12:16
dreadlordvharesh posted this in Carpe forum

nasty little tidbit here, that i'll be posting in the main forums as well...

in 7th ed magicians can wear armour and still cast spells, it does not state any where in the rulebook that armour hampers spellcasting...

you know what this means? normal vamp lords and counts could purchase magic armour and still keep their casting abilities!!! a vamp lord with 1+ armour save +drools+

however we necrarchs don't benefit, as our rules specifically state we can't buy magic or mundane armour +cries+

I replied

7th Ed BrB, page 121
' This includes many kinds of wizards whose natural harmony would be seriously affected by armour'

So it's still down to what your army book says..


The only magic armour in the VC book that states a wizard can wear it, is the Armour of Bone.
Am I right or what?

Lord Zarkov
10-06-2007, 12:24
Characters that cannot wear mundane armour in their normal options cannot take magical armour unless either the magic armour they wish to take or their individual rules make an exception

So in the case of Vampires (other than Blood Dragons who wear mundane armour) the only armour they can take IIRC is the Armour of Bone (as it makes an exception); they cannot take any others as they are unable to have mundane armour.

Wizards no longer have some innate hampering from armour though, they are just unnable to wear it

spikedog
10-06-2007, 13:47
Lor Zarkov: Unfortuantly your interpretation is incorrect in this version as far as I read the rule book.

It says in words to these effect "Characters that cannot take mudane armour MAY NOT select magical armour" and thus even though the armour of bone says it can be worn by a wizard without effecting thier spell casting ability none but the Blood Dragons and Von Carsteins can actually choose it. (If it said in the description that it can be taken by wizards that can not normally select armour then all would be well, but it doesn't)

This is a case of the rulebook overridding an army book rule, which apllies to all pre-7th books. See the Beasts ranking and the Bret magical item for other examples of this.

FatOlaf - dreadlordvharesh is correct.

EDIT: In fact if you check the VC FAQ on the GW site it explains this a little further with regard to Necrach and Lamiah Vampires.

EvC
10-06-2007, 20:44
Key words in your statement spikedog: "the armour of bone says it can be worn by a wizard without effecting thier spell casting ability". The entry for the armour over-rides the general rule that Wizards can't wear armour.

You say this means that the Blood Dragons and von Carsteins may wear it, but von Carstein Wizards don't have the option for armour, so by your rationale they wouldn't be able to wear it either- leaving only the Blood Dragons, who already get a 4+ save, making the Armour of Bone almost useless! It's very poorly worded but Zarkov is generally correct.

Lord Zarkov
10-06-2007, 20:59
@spikedog; Also see the wording for the Armour of Tarnus in the 7th Ed Empire book; it also has the wording of wizards being able to wear it and cast spells, so it apears that this is all the wording required, although I admt it is unclear


and dreadlordvharesh is right that vamps who can purchase armour wont lose their spellcasting ability to do so; but the only spellcasting vamps who can are Blood Dragons, who could cast in armour anyway; so the overall point conveyed in his post is incorrect, even if most of the specifics are correct (with the exception of 'normal vampire lords/counts being able to purchase armour, Von Carstien are the most normal and they can't)

spikedog
11-06-2007, 01:27
EVC - Thanks for pointing out my error with the Von Carsteins however I still believe that my original statement holds true.

The part of my sentence you highlighted is part of a larger sentence clause, it is saying if a wizard wears it then his magical abilities are not punished. In the last version this was fine but with the new rules they say if he can't choose mundane he can't choose magical armour.

Also I say again, if you check the VC FAQ it sites the case of the armour that says Necrach and Lamiahs Vamps can't wear despite the new rule that says they shouldn't be able to wear any armour and the FAQ says that it is an error and they can't wear any armour, magical or not. This includes Armour of Bone. Other wise the FAQ would say "They can't wear any armour at all, except armour of bone."

Of course play it as you will and as a Vampire player I am just shooting myself in the foot here but this is the way I read it.

Brother Siccarius
11-06-2007, 05:30
Ah the beauty of 7th ed changing rulebooks and armylists...I wonder where I've seen this before...

Lord_Byron
11-06-2007, 07:54
I had thought that army book rules trump BRB rules.

For example, the rules for frenzy say it effects mounts if the character is frenzied, however the rules for mark of khorne in the chaos book specifically states that the mounts do not get frenzy, and this rule takes precedence over the BRB.

Or.

A water feature is described as impassable, yet the aquatic rule in the lizardman book states that aquatic creatures treat all water features as open ground.

Therefore if an army book says a model may choose a piece of kit, even though the BRB says they can't... then they still can.

As to the armor of bone, lahmian and necrarch vamps may choose to take this armor. Why they ever would is beyond me however.

Lord Zarkov
11-06-2007, 09:14
Also I say again, if you check the VC FAQ it sites the case of the armour that says Necrach and Lamiahs Vamps can't wear despite the new rule that says they shouldn't be able to wear any armour and the FAQ says that it is an error and they can't wear any armour, magical or not. This includes Armour of Bone. Other wise the FAQ would say "They can't wear any armour at all, except armour of bone."


I know that, the FAQ seems fairly clear as to Lamiahs and Necrachs and I would agree that this implies they can't take armour of bone either (or the clause would be redundant); however Von Carstien Lords/Counts and Necromancers also have no armour options either, but I would argue that they could take the armour of bone

spikedog
11-06-2007, 09:51
@ Lord_Byron - Army book rules do indeed trump BRB rules, but this works in both ways, positive and negative. The facts are thus:

1. BRB says if someone can't take mundane armour they can't have magical.
2. VC book says Necrach, Von Carstein, Lamiah and Necromancers can't take mundane armour.

The only thing that confuses this situation is one sentence that in previous edition makes sense but now has no bearing what so ever. The FAQ just adds to my side of the argument.

@ Lord Zarkov - Why would you argue this? What evidence do you have to support your side of the argument?

The facts are pretty cut and dry as far as I read them, play it as you want but until someone actually provides a rule or quote that says otherwise I really don't see how you can argue otherwise.

P.S. Come on T10 or Festus, come in and either prove me wrong or back me up.

EvC
11-06-2007, 11:05
I can see why this is more confusing than at first glance; the general principle remains that the Armour of Bone CAN be taken by Wizards, as it says so. It requires a bit of wonky thinking, but you have to think like that at times or the entire rulebook falls down!

The Lahmian and Necrarch issue is a tricky one; they both have specific rules saying they cannot take mundane armour. This then means that they can't take ANY magic armour either (Which the FAQ states). The Armour of Bone can still be worn by Wizards, but not Necrarch, Lahmian (or Strigoi) Vampires. It's pretty convoluted. I think the difference is that whilst Lahmian, Necrarchs and Strigoi specifically are not allowed to take armour, Lord-level von Carsteins Vampires and Necromancers simply do not have the option. A subtle difference, but enough to make them distinct when it comes to wearing magic armour with a disclaimer for Wizards.

Stupid rules writing...

Lord Zarkov
11-06-2007, 11:31
My point exactaly

thanks EvC