Wood Elves: Duplication of enchanted arrows

[Clockwork]

MODERATOR'S NOTE:
As the discussion in Wood Elves seemed to focus on the possibility to duplicate Enchanted arrows, I split the topic.

Also, I added a poll, just for the fun!
Calisson.



There was some pretty interesting statistical analysis of the arrow upgrades posted on twitter:



As predicted, Hagbane and Arcane Bodkins stand out; but the others aren't too far behind in most situations. I still think we'll see those two more often than not, but equally it really could come down to personal preference.

[Dalamar]

They all have their uses.

Trueflight will be awesome to pick out enemy scouts and skirmishers. Moved, long range, soft or hard cover, skirmish? Or, right, I hit you on 3+
Hagbane will be great for war machines and monsters but will require volume to create those 6s.
Arcane Bodkins will be nice, but I see them inferior to Waywatchers so only good in a list with a few master scouts.
Moon and Starfire are too situational, and looking at the table worse than Hagbane in all cases. I think they might trump hagbane when you'd normally be wounding on 6s.
Swiftshiver can work in a more static/defensive list with deep ranks of glade guard showering the enemy druchii style so I don't imagine they will be used often.

My wood elves will be generally armed with Hagbane and Trueflight, depending on their purpose. Leaving heavy armor enemies to Waywatchers

[Askador]

Truelight is like the Tomb Guard rule but in good

Its very useful for every unit moving alot. And to get rid of those Skinks.

[Gidean]

Also, current consensus seems to lean towards only one unit being able to take each kind of arrows since they are magic items and are not excepted from 1 of a kind rule.

Really? Now to me that seems a very strained interpretation. That would be like saying Chaos Knights and Chaos Skullcrushers both cannot take ensorcelled weapons since they are magic weapons. Are the Wood Elf guys over at Asrai really trying to hamstring themselves this way?

[Amboadine]

Have to agree with Gidean, very strained interpretation. I think the book would have called it out specifically if these were limited, hence why they are in the armory section, rather than magic item section. (I know they are named as Enchanted magic items)
Even the unit entry states they can choose one of types of arrows, no limitations added nor any restriction on a different unit having the same.

[Dalamar]

It's not.
Arrows are all Enchanted Items
A Unit can pick any one of the enchanted items for the entire unit (exception from the rule of unique)

There is no exception that more than one unit can take the same enchanted item.

Chaos Knights and Skullcrushers don't have an option. It's their basic equipment. They can replace ensorcelled weapons with lances (not sure about Skullcrushers) so it's the other way around.

There are no extra restrictions added because arrows are classified as Enchanted Items. Why would they be classified as enchanted items and not "a unit upgrade that grants magic attacks on top of any other bonuses"?

Calling them Enchanted Items is being very specific... very unlike GW tends to be.

[Amboadine]

Just wondering if there was any type of battle report in White Dwarf that had the list. Didn't get it myself.
I understand the RAW argument for only one unit, however I do not believe that is the intention of the rule at all. As I think they would have called it out specifically if that was the case, as it is very easy to miss and the majority of players I believe would be fielding illegal lists.
Would not have been hard to write a single sentence in the armoury section to state only one type of each arrow is available per army if this was the intent. Basically if you give any character one of these arrows you are prohibiting a unit upgrade option.
Yet again poor writing of rules and need of FAQ, ridiculous.

[Gidean]

Nonsense with the arrow restriction. The arrows are a unit upgrade... Imagine a large wood elf army with multiple archer units. Swiftly, all arrow options will be gone, and you are then forced into a bunch of lame losers with ordinary arrows? Bugger that does that mean that only one dark rider unit can take shields?

Dal. I agree with Thraundil. Get the book and read it before you make any more such pronouncements. It even says in the book that taking the enchanted arrows does not prevent a character from having another enchanted item. So obviously they did not intend to apply the strick 'unique magic item rule' here. Units don't have magic items except for banners. And all those are unique. Ensorcelled weapons and magic arrows are simply unit weapon options.

[Thraundil]

Nonsense with the arrow restriction. The arrows are a unit upgrade... Imagine a large wood elf army with multiple archer units. Swiftly, all arrow options will be gone, and you are then forced into a bunch of lame losers with ordinary arrows? Bugger that does that mean that only one dark rider unit can take shields?


Also if it was a unique magic option... How come several elves, namely every elf in the unit, gets them?

[Killerk]

It's not.
Arrows are all Enchanted Items
A Unit can pick any one of the enchanted items for the entire unit (exception from the rule of unique)

There is no exception that more than one unit can take the same enchanted item.

Well you made an assumption that the unit picks one enchanted item. This is debatable. To me each model is equipped with the same enchanted item, therefore overriding the "only one type in army" rule. thus allowing duplicates in other units as well.

But its GW's lack of ability in logical thinking while rule writing.

Also the arrows are listed in the upgrade section, and not magic items. So to me it is obvious that they are to be considered as upgrades, and the rules for upgrades should take presence over magic item rules.

[Dyvim tvar]

It's not.
Arrows are all Enchanted Items
A Unit can pick any one of the enchanted items for the entire unit (exception from the rule of unique)

There is no exception that more than one unit can take the same enchanted item.

Well you made an assumption that the unit picks one enchanted item. This is debatable. To me each model is equipped with the same enchanted item, therefore overriding the "only one type in army" rule. thus allowing duplicates in other units as well.

But its GW's lack of ability in logical thinking while rule writing.

Also the arrows are listed in the upgrade section, and not magic items. So to me it is obvious that they are to be considered as upgrades, and the rules for upgrades should take presence over magic item rules.

Not directed to you in particular ...

[rant]

The Arrows state that they are an exception to the "Unique" rule in that multiple models in the same unit can have them. But this limited exception does not override the entire rule. Saying that multiple models in the same unit can have the arrows just means that multiple models in the same unit can have the same arrows--nothing more, nothing less. There is absolutely no logical reason to call the arrows Enchanted Items unless it is to prevent them from being chosen by multiple units.

The "location" argument you are making and that I have seen elsewhere is completely bogus. In Warhammer, when capitalized terms are used, they mean something. When the Arrows use the term "Enchanted Item," that means that the entire set of rules for Enchanted Items are incorporated by reference, except as specifically noted otherwise. Also, there are not even any "rules for upgrades" that could take precedence over the rules for magic items. There is a section in the rulebook called "Magic Items." It is a game term with a specific meaning. There is no section called "upgrades" and there are no rules generally applicable to "upgrades". People talking about "rules for upgrades" are making stuff up because they don't like the way the rules actually work.

I know this is not always the case, but GW has actually written rules that work together and reach a specific result when you apply logic--when Arrows can be taken by a unit every model in the unit gets them, but when the unit chooses them, nobody else can. If you apply actual logic instead of wishful thinking that's the only result you can get to. The problem isn't the logic of the rules, it's the refusal of certain people to apply logic when reading them.

[/rant]

[Dalamar]

Nonsense with the arrow restriction. The arrows are a unit upgrade... Imagine a large wood elf army with multiple archer units. Swiftly, all arrow options will be gone, and you are then forced into a bunch of lame losers with ordinary arrows? Bugger that does that mean that only one dark rider unit can take shields?

Dal. I agree with Thraundil. Get the book and read it before you make any more such pronouncements. It even says in the book that taking the enchanted arrows does not prevent a character from having another enchanted item. So obviously they did not intend to apply the strike 'unique magic item rule' here. Units don't have magic items except for banners. And all those are unique. Ensorcelled weapons and magic arrows are simply unit weapon options.

I'm not making any pronouncements, I'm simply following a 6+ pages discussion over at warhammer.org.uk. if there was no ambiguity there would be no discussion.

[Dragon9]

It's not.
Arrows are all Enchanted Items
A Unit can pick any one of the enchanted items for the entire unit (exception from the rule of unique)

There is no exception that more than one unit can take the same enchanted item.

Chaos Knights and Skullcrushers don't have an option. It's their basic equipment. They can replace ensorcelled weapons with lances (not sure about Skullcrushers) so it's the other way around.

There are no extra restrictions added because arrows are classified as Enchanted Items. Why would they be classified as enchanted items and not "a unit upgrade that grants magic attacks on top of any other bonuses"?

Calling them Enchanted Items is being very specific... very unlike GW tends to be.

At the same time they don't follow the normal magic item rules, I.e. They don't count towards the magic item point limit of a character, don't take up the enchanted item slot, more than one person can take them (an entire unit), they're listed in the unit upgrades, etc. logically, more than one unit can take the same arrow type.

[Dyvim tvar]

I'm not making any pronouncements, I'm simply following a 6+ pages discussion over at warhammer.org.uk. if there was no ambiguity there would be no discussion.

Oh I disagree ...

People create ambiguity when the new rules don't work the way they want.

[Thraundil]

I have not seem the actual wording, so I cant actually say for sure... But. If under e.g. a unit of glade guard it says roughly like this:

Entire unit may take bla bla magic arrows bla bla. ........ X points per model.

Then in my opinion, an unlimited number of glade guard units may take any single arrow type.

The other specific wording in the rule, where it is "max one unit may take X", we can find how this is written in the empire book.

Knightly orders.
"One knightly orders unit in the army may be upgraded to inner circle knights". 3 pts per model.

Like I said, I have not seen the new book or the actual wording. But if the entires say that a unit may take one of the following 5 magic arrows, then you can repeat. If the entry says a single unit in the army may take EACH of the following, then its an other story...

In my opinion, if GW and the rule writers wanted to very specifically limit the amount of magic arrows in the army, they would have written it clearly out. This whole ambiguity is, I think, as Dyvim points out, created to try and limit wood elves which some people have hyped up to be the new OP
I understand that the armybook does not say "you can take this multiple times". But when it is either A or B. Lack of an "A is OK" sentence, does not automatically make B the right call.

[Dyvim tvar]

To the contrary, I think the ambiguity is created by the Wood Elf players ...

[Askador]

About the enchantet items rule and the Arrows:

The difference here is simple. An magic item like an "Ogre Blade or whatever" is limited to one Model not a unit. Arrows are for a whole unit so its already something different.

I dont see any logic reason why the Arrows should be limited to only one unit. There is no hint inside the book for that and the Magical Item rule is already obsolete, because the Arrows already work different then Magic items for the Charakters.
Its just a unit upgreat nothing else and no reason to make an errata for that.

Just stop making the rules more complicated then they are

[Dyvim tvar]

About the enchantet items rule and the Arrows:

The different here is simple. An magic item like an "Ogre Blade or whatever" is limited to one Model not a unit. Arrows are for a whole unit so its already something different.

I dont see any logic reason why the Arrows should be limited to only one unit. There is no hint inside the book for that and the Magical Item rule is already obsolete, because the Arrows already work different then Magic items for the Charakters.
Its just a unit upgreat nothing else and no reason to make an errata for that.

Your error in logic is that just because the Arrows are different from other Enchanted Items in one way, that does not mean that they are different in other ways. They are still Enchanted Items.

[Askador]

About the enchantet items rule and the Arrows:

The different here is simple. An magic item like an "Ogre Blade or whatever" is limited to one Model not a unit. Arrows are for a whole unit so its already something different.

I dont see any logic reason why the Arrows should be limited to only one unit. There is no hint inside the book for that and the Magical Item rule is already obsolete, because the Arrows already work different then Magic items for the Charakters.
Its just a unit upgreat nothing else and no reason to make an errata for that.

Your error in logic is that just because the Arrows are different from other Enchanted Items in one way, that does not mean that they are different in other ways. They are still Enchanted Items.

So only one model of one unit gets one arrow? Poor elves

[Calisson]

If you discuss rules, please quote rules first.

About enchanted arrows, RAW seems to be (quoted from other forums, I have no access to the WEAB in English):
"Some models in the Wood Elf army have the option to purchase enchanted arrows. These are enchanted items, but do not prevent a model from having a second enchanted item... All shooting attacks made with enchanted arrows count as having been made with magic weapons."
"The entire unit may take one of the following types of enchanted arrows:" (..)
Anyone who can read understands that every model in the whole unit gets the magic arrows.
@ Askador, please do assume that other people in this forum know how to read.

I have not seen any rule quote which would allow duplication of enchanted arrows to several units.

I recall in our previous AB, the null shards could be taken several times. An FAQ specified later that it could be replicated on a single model, but not on several models or units (some champs had access).
It might well be a similar case of duplication within the same unit, not allowing duplication throughout the army.

I've read some strange arguments about those arrows, from people who wish hard to duplicate the arrows across the army.
Some people say that if there are enough arrows for a unit of 30, then there is sufficient for 3 x 10. The druchii equivalent would be to count how many models can drink witchbrew? Common sense and rules are different things.
Another argument was that there were only 6 sorts of enchanted arrows, and people resented that "only" 6 units could get enchanted arrows if no duplication was allowed... Poor of them, forced to use mere mundane arrows for the 7th unit...

[Dyvim tvar]

So only one model of one unit gets one arrow? Poor elves

Now you are purposefully misrepresenting the issue and essentially trolling.

[Askador]

So only one model of one unit gets one arrow? Poor elves

Now you are purposefully misrepresenting the issue and essentially trolling.

Its was just a joke. Cool down.
I just think its strange that peoples need an errata for everything.

[Gidean]

Nonsense with the arrow restriction. The arrows are a unit upgrade... Imagine a large wood elf army with multiple archer units. Swiftly, all arrow options will be gone, and you are then forced into a bunch of lame losers with ordinary arrows? Bugger that does that mean that only one dark rider unit can take shields?

Dal. I agree with Thraundil. Get the book and read it before you make any more such pronouncements. It even says in the book that taking the enchanted arrows does not prevent a character from having another enchanted item. So obviously they did not intend to apply the strike 'unique magic item rule' here. Units don't have magic items except for banners. And all those are unique. Ensorcelled weapons and magic arrows are simply unit weapon options.

I'm not making any pronouncements, I'm simply following a 6+ pages discussion over at warhammer.org.uk. if there was no ambiguity there would be no discussion.

That's fine. I've said my piece on this issue. I am a lawyer in real life and once during a trial I asked the witness to state their name for the record. The defense attorney said, "Objection! Hearsay!". The Judge turned to the attorney and said, "How is someone giving their name Hearsay, Mr. Smith?" He replied, "How do they know their name...their parents told him, thus it is hearsay." The judge promptly overruled his ridicules objection. I'm sorry guys but this arrow issue has fallen into the same realm of ridicules to me. I don't care if there is 6 pages of debate on another forum. I hope we don't devote 6 pages to it here.

[Dalamar]

Sadly, according to people who actually own the book, RAW is clearly not allowing duplicates.

Not like it affects me anyway since mixing arrows is far superior to focusing on one upgrade.

[Gidean]

Sad that you choose to limit yourself like that. With characters taking them I can see a player running out arrow options. I didn't read it as any sort of RAW. But I am use to applying the plain meaning rule of law.