PDA

View Full Version : Iron Back Boar and Vauls Unmaking



totaltyke
19-07-2007, 20:09
Hey,

I did a quick search and nothing came up so...

What happens if Vauls Unmaking is cast on an Orc character with an Iron Back Boar? Does it turn into a Normal Boar, or does the character have to use his own 2 legs for the rest of the battle? :confused:

Opinions?

The Orc guy said it turns into a normal boar, everyone else said the guy ends up on foot!

TIA :D

Xavier
19-07-2007, 20:12
Uh...

I have no idea, and don't think it has ever come up...

The spell makes the item, 'nullified' for the rest of the battle, which I assume would be its magic effects...

If it happened in a game with me I would let him still count it as a normal boar, though that isn't much to go on...

Urgat
19-07-2007, 21:56
Mmmh, well... as much as it pains me, I'd say the boar is gone. It's a mechanical boar, not even magic or anything. If it stops working, it stops working. It would be a gyrocopter, the thing wouldn't turn into a bird... but that's more logic than rules (that said, if we go by logic, the spell wouldn't work since the boar isn't a magic item per say, it is just for rule reasons...)
So rule-wise, I don't specifically know that spell, but let's take, dunno, a magic great sword (I suppose there's some around?)
1) if the spell renders its effects useless but you can still use it as a great sword, it means the ironback turns into a boar (as stupid as it may sound)
2) if the spell renders the weapon useless and the bearer as to use his default hand weapon instead, it means the boar would go.

winter has ended
19-07-2007, 22:29
its a magic object that gives you a mechanical boar, you dont even have to take a mount to get it so techincal yes it would be gone, like the gears have been clogged or something

ZomboCom
20-07-2007, 00:16
Actually, the wording of vauls unmaking is that the item is "nullified". Items that "count as" a specific normal item will have the magical effect nullified, but retain their normal properties.

e.g. a tryant with tenderizer gets vaulsed, and ends up with a mundane great weapon.

The orc would end up with a mundane boar.

JackBurton01
20-07-2007, 01:24
I don't think vauls will do anything to the boar, it wouldn't nullify a hoch land rifle or pigon bomb or a mechanical stead. Why would it nullify the boar? It says in the entry it is mechanical just because it is in the arcane items section doesn't justify it to me.

ZomboCom
20-07-2007, 01:50
I don't think vauls will do anything to the boar, it wouldn't nullify a hoch land rifle or pigon bomb or a mechanical stead. Why would it nullify the boar? It says in the entry it is mechanical just because it is in the arcane items section doesn't justify it to me.

Vauls unmaking nullifies magic items. The ironback boar is a magic item.

Ta da.

knightime98
20-07-2007, 08:16
The Iron Back Boar is an Enchanted Item. That makes it magical.
However, the item says it is a - "Boar."
My opinion on the matter would be that it would no longer function as the Enchanted item. However, I would allow it to be played as a mundane boar. Basically, it will only get A s5 impact hit instead of a D3 S5 impact hits. I would think he would have better fun destroying other stuff than that. So, it seems to me and the way that I would play it.

ZomboCom
20-07-2007, 12:31
A s5 impact hit? Huh? Normal boars don't do impact hits.

Xavier
20-07-2007, 14:48
Think he means a Str 5 attack on the charge.

Steeve
20-07-2007, 19:38
I read it as a magically animated machine.


However, the item says it is a - "Boar."


Taken in context, it is more likely that "Boar" is used to reference the Boar's stats rather than to say it is a Boar.

Given all that, you would be left with a heavy, non-moving machine that looks like a Boar. :)

lparigi34
26-07-2007, 22:55
The IMO the "Boar" word addition at the beginning of the explanation is for not repeating all the stats and boar characteristics... It is a "mechanical contraception" that is magically activated and behaves very much like a mundane Boar... plus adding D3 S5 impact hits when charging...

So no Boar if Vauled...

Festus
26-07-2007, 23:01
Hi

It is a Boar, and stays one, even after the unmaking, just as the Pigstikka stays a spear or the Snapping Shield stays a shield.

Festus

Masque
27-07-2007, 00:03
It is a Boar, and stays one, even after the unmaking, just as the Pigstikka stays a spear or the Snapping Shield stays a shield.

I'm curious to know if you would make the same decision if the spell in question were Law of Gold.

Steeve
27-07-2007, 02:49
Hi

It is a Boar, and stays one, even after the unmaking, just as the Pigstikka stays a spear or the Snapping Shield stays a shield.

Festus

I think the difference between a spear or shield and the Ironback Boar is that spears and shields do not require magic to serve thier purpose. The Ironback Boar on the other hand, was created to simulate a boar and is magically powered. Remove the power and it does not move.
The fluff and it's location under Enchanted Items bear this out, no?

I suppose a Ogre or a Giant might use it as a club though,... :D

Lander
27-07-2007, 03:28
I think the difference between a spear or shield and the Ironback Boar is that spears and shields do not require magic to serve thier purpose. The Ironback Boar on the other hand, was created to simulate a boar and is magically powered. Remove the power and it does not move.
The fluff and it's location under Enchanted Items bear this out, no?

I suppose a Ogre or a Giant might use it as a club though,... :D

Its a Mount.

Festus
27-07-2007, 08:39
I think the difference between a spear or shield and the Ironback Boar is that spears and shields do not require magic to serve thier purpose. The Ironback Boar on the other hand, was created to simulate a boar and is magically powered. Remove the power and it does not move.
The fluff and it's location under Enchanted Items bear this out, no?

No. There are only a few magic Itrems which tell us, into which mundane category they fall. If they lose their power, they are just their mundane counterparts.

Law of Gold explicitly stops the usage of an item, no matter what it is. This is an entirely different matter.

Festus

lparigi34
27-07-2007, 09:48
No. There are only a few magic Itrems which tell us, into which mundane category they fall. If they lose their power, they are just their mundane counterparts.

Law of Gold explicitly stops the usage of an item, no matter what it is. This is an entirely different matter.

Festus

Yeah.. I'm going to change my view here. Originally I interpreted this differently, being an Enchanted Item instead of a Weapon or Armour.

In other threads I've supported this fact: that magic items should always be specified of what mundane item it behaves like when losing its power. If no mundane behavior is not specified, then it loses all of its power (i.e. a Magic Weapon with no specification on mundane type leaves the wielder no choice but to use the mundane weapon he comes with by default, usually a Hand Weapon).

My rant here is that GW should be more careful here and present things consistenly across rulebooks. :eyebrows:

T10
27-07-2007, 10:28
Vaul's Unmaking vs. Iron Back Boar:
As has already been stated, this results in the Orc riding what is essentially a normal boar:

The item is a boar with magical properties. The spell removes the magical properties, leaving a normal boar.

If you feel this conflic with the fluff is completely unacceptable, then I applaud your dedication to the sprit of the game and recommend you stop playing and concentrate solely on writing fan-fiction from now on. Yes: sarcasm.

Law of Gold vs. Iron Back Boar:
This spell disallows the use of a magic item. But what is "use"? To you "use" a Talisman of Protection to save vs a cannon ball? Do you "use" the Cloak of Beards when it invokes Fear and Hatred in Dwarfs? Do you "use" the Iron Back Boar when it grants a +2 bonus to your armour save? Yes, those are rhetorical questions. I feel like I'm giving writing lessons here, which is ironic considering my spelling isn't that grate (Heh, meta-textual humour there. Appreciate it.)

The spells fluff tells us that the items are rendered useless, the spell description tells us the item cannot be used. It seems reasonable to assume that the character still possesses the item and that it merely counts as a mundane variant for the duration of the spell.

That is: An item described as a Lance is still a lance. An item described as Light Armour is stil a suit of Light Armour. And an item described as a Boar is still a Boar.

-T10

Masque
27-07-2007, 10:40
Law of Gold explicitly stops the usage of an item, no matter what it is. This is an entirely different matter.

Are you sure it's entirely different? As far as we know 'nullified' and 'cannot be used' are synonyms. Actually, in the High Elf FAQ one of the questions asks if Unmaking can 'destroy' the CoS or AoD and the answer is no. The reason given though is that the targets are not magical items not that Unmaking does not 'destroy' anything at all. This seems to imply that 'nullified' is the same as 'destroyed'.


The spells fluff tells us that the items are rendered useless, the spell description tells us the item cannot be used. It seems reasonable to assume that the character still possesses the item and that it merely counts as a mundane variant for the duration of the spell.

This really seems like you are saying that 'useless' means the same thing as 'less useful' which I think you'll agree is not true at all.

Festus
27-07-2007, 10:57
Are you sure it's entirely different? As far as we know 'nullified' and 'cannot be used' are synonyms. Actually, in the High Elf FAQ one of the questions asks if Unmaking can 'destroy' the CoS or AoD and the answer is no. The reason given though is that the targets are not magical items not that Unmaking does not 'destroy' anything at all. This seems to imply that 'nullified' is the same as 'destroyed'.
Yes, I am sure, very much.

The one negates its magical abilities, whereels the other strictly forbids its usage for a certain time (or the whole game).

Take the Pigstikka, for example:
If doesn't have any magical properties anymore, it still is a spear and can be used as such.
If it cannot be used, it will not grant +1S on the charge (if mounted) and simply is out of the game.

Very different indeed.

Festus

Masque
27-07-2007, 11:03
The one negates its magical abilities, whereels the other strictly forbids its usage for a certain time (or the whole game).

Unmaking nullifies a magic item not the magical abilities of a magic item. How do you know it doesn't nullify the entire item?

T10
27-07-2007, 11:04
I'm just enjoying the opportunity to blatantly denounce the fluff as heresy (Vauls Unmaking vs. Iron Back Boar) and then heatedly discount the rules in favour of the fluff (Law of gold vs. Iron Back Boar). Anything to support my own argument. I'm discovering a latent talent here: I might just get into religion. Or politics. :)

Anyways. I'm interested in learning what people think the consequences will be once it is established that the Orc "may not use" his Iron Back Boar.

-T10

Masque
27-07-2007, 11:10
Anyways. I'm interested in learning what people think the consequences will be once it is established that the Orc "may not use" his Iron Back Boar.

What could the consequences be other than the Orc is now on foot and possibly the standard 'if you don't have a foot version to represent him you're out of luck and he's removed as a casualty'?

T10
27-07-2007, 11:17
Certainly that is one way to creativley introduce a procedure for handling the no longer usable model, except you are assuming that the boar would in fact need to be removed. How about we let the boar stay in the game and just consider it "useless".

-T10

DeathlessDraich
27-07-2007, 11:45
I'm amazed at the conclusions made here.

1) A magic item with a mundane item descriptor *does not* revert to the mundane item if the magic is destroyed.
There is no rule that states this in the main rule book.
The magic item *must* specifically state that it will revert to a mundane weapon for this to happen.
[Consider Runes, weapons that functions as lances or great weapons and I am sure you will agree].
To quote Atrahasis - "only a magic item's rules will determine how it functions".

2) The mundane item descriptor in magic item does not mean it will always function or even look like the mundane item. It certainly does not have the same bonuses as the equivalent mundane item.
E.g.
a magic shield is not necessarily carried by the non fighting arm, it could be an aura of energy surrounding the bearer - hence a magical shield.
The Griffon standard is not necessarily carried - it could be a floating magical Griffon that gives the bearer the added CR bonuses etc.
These are after all magical items, their form is not covered by the rules and is limited by imagination of the player.

3) Iron back Boar is not merely a mechanical boar. The description in italics is not its rules.
It is an Enchanted Item, a magical item, a magical boar and not a mechanical boar that became magical as in Boar's anger! :p
The word 'Boar' in its rules is a shortened version of the obligatory "counts as a" boar. 'Counts as' is the accepted short cut that explains how magic items works.
A player could regard it as a magical version of the mundane item [nothing wrong with that] but that does not give it the added ability of reverting to that mundane item when the magical effects is nullified.

4) Vaul's Unmaking - "reveal all magic items. The caster chooses one of them to be nullified".
Reading the description in context. The magic item is nullified.
The Iron back Boar is destroyed

Festus
27-07-2007, 11:58
So this would mean that my Dwarf with his runic Axe has no weapon left after Vaul's unmaking nullified it?

Nonsense.

Festus

DeathlessDraich
27-07-2007, 12:21
1) You looked at the wrong rune. :D and jumped to the wrong conclusion
Runes are inscribed on the mundane weapons/ armour etc that the dwarf has - very different from other magic weapons which are new magic items altogether and not a magic weapon made from a mundane weapon.

How Vaul's Unmaking affects Runic item will depend on the Rune's description and a whole new debate. Let's put that aside for the moment.

2) Let's stick with the Iron back boar. Vaul's unmaking states it nullifies the magic item. I can't see how that could possibly mean 'nullify magical effects only'.

3) Look at the whole post instead of choosing one statement you don't like.

4) Hope you're enjoying your holidays. Can I recommend the Black Forest - plenty of boars, to examine your hypothesis!:D.
As for me the only chance I get to see a Black Forest is in a Beyonce raunchy video.:p

Masque
27-07-2007, 12:33
So this would mean that my Dwarf with his runic Axe has no weapon left after Vaul's unmaking nullified it?

Nonsense.

I don't know why you declare this 'nonsense' with such certainty. Is it only 'nullification' that you think wouldn't result in a weaponless Dwarf or do you feel this way about Law of Gold and the various 'destroy' magic item effects available throughout the game?

Festus
27-07-2007, 12:35
Hi

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude.

But still: A Runic Item is a Magic Item as is every other.

The Items which are described as being anything mundane with magical properties will lose the properties.

A lance will still be a lance, a spear will ... and so on. You already read it.

The problem is: What is *to nullify*?

Main Entry: nul·li·fy
Pronunciation: 'n&-l&-"fI
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -fied; -fy·ing
Etymology: Late Latin nullificare, from Latin nullus
1 : to make null; especially : to make legally null and void
2 : to make of no value or consequence
synonyms NULLIFY, NEGATE, ANNUL, ABROGATE, INVALIDATE mean to deprive of effective or continued existence. NULLIFY implies counteracting completely the force, effectiveness, or value of something <a penalty nullified the touchdown>. NEGATE implies the destruction or canceling out of each of two things by the other <the arguments negate each other>. ANNUL suggests making ineffective or nonexistent often by legal or official action <the treaty annuls all previous agreements>. ABROGATE is like ANNUL but more definitely implies a legal or official act <a law to abrogate trading privileges>. INVALIDATE implies making something powerless or unacceptable by declaration of its logical or moral or legal unsoundness <the court invalidated the statute>.

This is different to *to destroy*, or isn't it?

Main Entry: de·stroy
Pronunciation: di-'stroi, dE-
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French destroy-, destrui-, stem of destrure, from Vulgar Latin *destrugere, alteration of Latin destruere, from de- + struere to build -- more at STRUCTURE
transitive verb
1 : to ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of <destroyed the files>; also : to ruin as if by tearing to shreds <their reputation was destroyed>
2 a : to put out of existence : KILL <destroy an injured horse> b : NEUTRALIZE <the moon destroys the light of the stars> c : ANNIHILATE, VANQUISH <armies had been crippled but not destroyed -- W. L. Shirer>
intransitive verb : to cause destruction

Festus

edit: Masque - we are not takling about Law of Gold or other things here. It is just about Vaul's. See post #17

Rytter
27-07-2007, 12:40
Vaul's Unmaking vs. Iron Back Boar:
As has already been stated, this results in the Orc riding what is essentially a normal boar:

The item is a boar with magical properties. The spell removes the magical properties, leaving a normal boar.


I must admit I don't have the rules for the Iron Back Boar in front of me - but it seems to me that it is a piece of metal scrap with magical properties, which make it able to move like a boar. The spell removes the magical properties leaving a normal piece of metal scrap. Therefor the boar is removed.

I see no indication, that it is a regular boar which have been given magical properties...

Rytter

T10
27-07-2007, 12:48
Here is the relevant item description:

Iron Back Boar
Boar. (...)

I've ommitted the superfluous fluff and the effects that are in addition to the item being, in fact, a boar. I know, I'm about as helpful as a four-year-old and twice as funny.

Anyways, to follow that up with something interesting, here is the relevant item description for the Spiteful Shield:

Spiteful Shield
Shield. (...)

-T10

DeathlessDraich
27-07-2007, 13:12
I don't know why you declare this 'nonsense' with such certainty. Is it only 'nullification' that you think wouldn't result in a weaponless Dwarf or do you feel this way about Law of Gold and the various 'destroy' magic item effects available throughout the game?

Another interesting variant but lets resolve the IBoar first.


Hi

The problem is: What is *to nullify*?


LOL! Oxford or Chambers dictionary?

I agree 'nullify' is a Dark elf shade away from 'destroy'. :p

but

I see *all* the effects and properties of a magic item as magical and hence when it is nullified the magic item becomes totally inert. *

If a magic weapon counts as a great weapon with +2S and has +3 attacks then all 3 attacks are nullified *which includes* its +2S.

The +2S stems from the magic effects and is not a mundane effect. If it was regarded as mundane, then +2S would not be magical when rolling to wound.

Similarly for the Iron back boar, its charge bonus is magical and when the IBoar is nullified that goes too. Since all the IBoar's attacks are magical, it will have no attacks when nullified.
I'll even go one step further and state that the movement of the IBoar is magical in the same way as Unseen Lurker or Mankara's Urgency. Therefore that is removed too etc etc.

*[This is necessary because if a magical sword becomes a mundane sword then, the bearer could be in possession of 2 hand weapons!]

I think the problem is players see the IBoar as a Boar and not a magical boar. It could well be that (this is my speculative fluff and not rules) the bearer is being given 4 Boar's legs and tusks (from the inert mechanical boar) which glow with the energy of Mork and gives him all the bonuses of that magic item.

Ninsaneja
27-07-2007, 14:34
This argument should not have anything to do with the boar and all to do with the effect of Vaul's. Simply put, if Vaul's normally leaves an item as its mundane equivalent, then the boar will remain, and if it does not, it will not. I do not know the details of Vaul's, I don't have the High Elf Book.

Now seems to be the time to request clarification on that (at least in the next book!) Somebody should E-Mail GW!

Steeve
27-07-2007, 15:28
Here is the relevant item description:

Iron Back Boar
Boar. (...)

I've ommitted the superfluous fluff and the effects that are in addition to the item being, in fact, a boar. I know, I'm about as helpful as a four-year-old and twice as funny.

Anyways, to follow that up with something interesting, here is the relevant item description for the Spiteful Shield:

Spiteful Shield
Shield. (...)

-T10

I still think that in both these cases the context suggests a statline. The print below the "fluff" is intended as stats or how to use the item when determining damage during a battle.

SO, given that assumption;
"Boar." indicates it's statline. The alternative is to add a graphic in it's spot restating a statline that has already been printed elsewhere.
The same would hold for the shield as it's mundane counterpart confers a defense modifier and is also explained elsewhere. (Given my newbieness, I cannot seem to find where that "elsewhere" is at the moment :) ).

The underlying problem here appears to be what the intended meaning of "Boar." or "Shield." is, or for that matter ANY item listed that way below the fluff.

As is Blazingly obvious by my assumption that it is as a statline :)



Now seems to be the time to request clarification on that (at least in the next book!) Somebody should E-Mail GW!

I agree.

It appears to me that GW should establish a well defined convention for how the armybooks are laid out.


Steve

lparigi34
27-07-2007, 15:44
I've thoroughly complained of the general issue that is the core issue of this thread: How do magical items behave when its magical effects are removed.

I've always said a full explanation of both behaviors is necessary like this

Ironback Boar
Fluff Here.. Mechanical Pig blah blah blah
Magic: causes additional extra D3 S5 impact hits when charging
Mundane:Boar

If it had no mundane value, the explanation would be like this

Ironback Boar
Fluff Here.. Mechanical Pig blah blah blah
Magic: Boar. In addition causes D3 S5 impact hits when charging
Mundane:Not Mudane

Masque
27-07-2007, 15:51
The Items which are described as being anything mundane with magical properties will lose the properties.

A lance will still be a lance, a spear will ... and so on. You already read it.

The problem is: What is *to nullify*?

If a magic item loses its magical abilities but maintains its mundane abilities I would say the item has been diminished, reduced, or weakened. If a magic item loses all of its abilities I would say the item has been negated, invalidated, or nullified.

If there was an effect said it 'nullified a weapon' you would assume that weapon to be completely useless, correct? You wouldn't assume some of its bonuses, abilities, or uses remain, would you? How is 'nullifying a magic item' any different?

Yellow Commissar
27-07-2007, 17:50
If the Ironback Boar is "nullified", I don't see how it can be used in any way. :confused:

After all, it has been "nullified". If it is being used and contributing to the game, then it has not been "nullified".

Arnizipal
03-08-2007, 20:34
So this would mean that my Dwarf with his runic Axe has no weapon left after Vaul's unmaking nullified it?

Nonsense.

Festus
Every model also has a hand weapon if they have a magic weapon, so he could use that.

sulla
03-08-2007, 23:03
Every model also has a hand weapon if they have a magic weapon, so he could use that.

Everyone except a dwarf who has just put a rune on that same handweapon...

Arnizipal
04-08-2007, 00:03
Don't think so actually. As soon as you take any kind of magic weapon (or upgrade your 'normal' weapon) you get a handweapon for free.

enyoss
04-08-2007, 01:28
I agree with Arnizipal, all models are assumed to have a hand weapon in all situations. The whole issue of the Dwarf lord is a bit of a red herring.

Incidently, I'm confused as to why the Porko Pigstikka is being used as a reason for the boar not being destroyed. The explicit reference to the Pigstikka retaining it's special weapon rules appears in the description for the Talisman of Saphery, not the Vaul's Unmaking spell description. This makes it seem, to me at least, that the exclusion of this in the spell description was intentional and that magic items affected by the spell do not keep their mundane abilities. I find it unlikely that they'd bother to explicitly state it in one place and not the other if they intended it to apply to both.

Anyway, back to the Ironback Boar. I think that if keeping as close to the rules as possible, the item is nullified completely, and the bearer is now on foot. However, I accept that this could be an incompatibility issue with the books (which they probably weren't too bothered about considering the impending release of the new high elf book) so I'd probably let my opponent keep a bog standard boar if they wanted to. :)

Cheers,

enyoss

Ninth Eagle
04-08-2007, 01:56
ok at first i was in the "item is nullified therefor useless" camp however after thinking about it, is that argument right? After all if you nullify a magic sword does it stop being a physical sword, or is it now non existent. i think the real question here is the definition of "nullified" and how its applied in warhammer, does that mean destroyed, or merely "deactivated" (for lack of a better word). i don't know the specifics of Vauls Unmaking but to me so excuse me if this is all nonsense.

ninth eagle

DaBrode
04-08-2007, 03:48
In all fantasy gaming references I can think of when a magic item is nullified it loses it's magical properties and is rendered "normal". I understand this is simply my experience in the world of fantasy gaming however as a 33 yr old I feel I may have a similar background to those individuals that are writing the rulebooks we're reading.

That said...

I believe it was Steeve that mentioned that the he felt the first line item in the description of a magic item in WHFB was simply for statline purposes. I disagree...I disagree alot.

If it was for statline purposes I feel they would have stated, see shield. They do not. A spiteful Shield is not a magical item that uses a shield's statline. It IS a shield. They are telling you outright that it is that item. Then they continue by adding further detail which makes it a unique shield due to magical properties.

On to the Ironback Boar...

Unfortunately our fluff is colliding with our game rules here and although that sits a bit odd with all of us the truth is the rules for this item state that it IS first and foremost a boar. I imagine it states this not only so you know what it's stats are but so you know how to handle situations like the one Vaul's creates. You can argue the fluff side of this til you're blue in the face but the rules always overrule the fluff. I don't think anyone here will argue that, right?

In this case I would say that if it bothers you that much to picture the magic stripped of the Ironback Boar and still see it moving around the table with it's rider than except the possibility that the magic simply enhanced it's already mechanical capability. Perhaps it's a "clockwork" steed capable of movement prior to it's enchantments and when those enchantments are removed it loses steam...losing the ability to grant additional powers but still able to act the part of a "nullified" boar.

I don't think there is any mistake in the wording or the description of this item nor the items that "nullify" magic. All there is is our wanting of explanation. The question of "How is that possible?" and the truth is that it does not matter...the rules state exactly what it is when disenchanted (a.k.a. Nullified)...it's a boar.

sulla
05-08-2007, 07:17
Don't think so actually. As soon as you take any kind of magic weapon (or upgrade your 'normal' weapon) you get a handweapon for free.

Is that a rule though, or just commonsense?

Ninsaneja
05-08-2007, 12:43
Clearly it is not intended that Vaul's unmaking should leave you without a weapon. I think it is not too far to take "All models have a hand weapon unless otherwise specified" to mean "All models will have a handweapon unless their rules entry or an effect specifically says they will not have one." That is to say, Wights will still have handweapons when their Wight Blades are destroyed (Which, being used by Wights, will be Wight Blades, but not Halberds.) and a Dwarf character will simply lose whatever runes he put on his weapon, to give two examples.

Arnizipal
05-08-2007, 18:33
Is that a rule though, or just commonsense?
According to the rulebook page 56 all models are assumed to be carrying a hand weapon uless otherwise specified.

Steeve
06-08-2007, 13:08
I understand this is simply my experience in the world of fantasy gaming however as a 33 yr old I feel I may have a similar background to those individuals that are writing the rulebooks we're reading.

A valid assumption, but an assumption non the less.


If it was for statline purposes I feel they would have stated, see shield. They do not. A spiteful Shield is not a magical item that uses a shield's statline. It IS a shield. They are telling you outright that it is that item. Then they continue by adding further detail which makes it a unique shield due to magical properties.

Another assumption, (as are mine :) ).

As I have stated earlier, this all boils down to what we assume that one word sentence means, (Boar., Shield., etc.).
I could rewrite your first sentence to say:
If it were intended to define what the item actually is they would have stated, a shield. They do not.

This is ultimately an issue that only GW can clear up. The solution in the mean time is to create house rules or just decide the correct way to handle this at the table, before game start. I personally would go either way depending on what my opponent wanted.

Ninsaneja
07-08-2007, 00:35
Having read the rules to Vaul's Unmaking since first reading this thread, I must add that I now believe the boar sticks around. Unmaking specifically states (at least in my buddy's copy of the army book) that items revert to non-magical types, and the boar is clearly a boar.

DaBrode
07-08-2007, 07:43
Another assumption, (as are mine :) ).

As I have stated earlier, this all boils down to what we assume that one word sentence means, (Boar., Shield., etc.).
I could rewrite your first sentence to say:
If it were intended to define what the item actually is they would have stated, a shield. They do not.

Yes but what you fail to see is in the sentence Shield. it says it all. There is no assumption of anything. That sentence means..."It's a Shield, period". YOU are adding that maybe it means only statlines etc. and you, in my opinion, are wrong becasue you are adding assumption to the simple sentence.

If I point at a monkey and exclaim..."Monkey." is there any question of what I really mean?

Masque
07-08-2007, 09:30
Having read the rules to Vaul's Unmaking since first reading this thread, I must add that I now believe the boar sticks around. Unmaking specifically states (at least in my buddy's copy of the army book) that items revert to non-magical types, and the boar is clearly a boar.

Is your buddy's copy in some language other than English? My copy is in English and says no such thing.

Ninsaneja
07-08-2007, 10:02
well, maybe. In fact, it was dictated to me. Perhaps I should check closer.

enyoss
07-08-2007, 10:41
well, maybe. In fact, it was dictated to me. Perhaps I should check closer.

This was my point earlier. Vaul's Unmaking says nothing about weapons remaining as basic weapons of the same type; that's in the description for the Talisman of Saphery from the Enchanted Items section which does a similar thing.

I'll point out again, doesn't it seem odd that they explicitly address this point in one of these descriptions but not in the other if the intention is that they us the same rules?

Cheers,

enyoss

kroq'gar
07-08-2007, 10:50
A rune items not nullified. all dwarf runes on a runic item are 'drained away'. Given your arguing word selection, sorry, couldnt help throw that in the works.

Steeve
07-08-2007, 13:29
Yes but what you fail to see is in the sentence Shield. it says it all. There is no assumption of anything. That sentence means..."It's a Shield, period". YOU are adding that maybe it means only statlines etc. and you, in my opinion, are wrong becasue you are adding assumption to the simple sentence.

If I point at a monkey and exclaim..."Monkey." is there any question of what I really mean?

I'm getting the impression that you think I am,... ( for lack of a better word), attacking you. If this is so, please accept my apologies, I am not intentionally doing any such thing. I enjoy logical argument, most take this as attack. Again I'm sorry if this is the case.

As for the this particular issue, my position is clear, AND I have nothing new to add at this point.

BTW: DaBrode I sent you a PM did you get it?

DaBrode
07-08-2007, 23:31
I'm getting the impression that you think I am,... ( for lack of a better word), attacking you. If this is so, please accept my apologies, I am not intentionally doing any such thing. I enjoy logical argument, most take this as attack. Again I'm sorry if this is the case.

As for the this particular issue, my position is clear, AND I have nothing new to add at this point.

BTW: DaBrode I sent you a PM did you get it?

I also enjoy logical debate and I'm not in anyway under the impression you are attacking me. I did not get your PM yet, I'll check.

My whole point was to state that you are reading too much into a sentence and adding your own inference that simply is not there otherwise. When the statement "Shield." is made in the description/definition of another item specifically with a period ending it, for the purposes of the English language, it means it is just that. Forget WHFB...that's English. It does not mean it refers to something else or use stat lines from another section. I'm not saying I don't understand your thought process behind your conclusion because if you make a little "stretch" like this it does seem to clear things up a bit (however not completely). It just doesn't work that way though.