Potion(s) of Strength?

[Kreoss]

Sparked by this thread, I had some questions about the Potion of Strength listed in our army book and the one in the new 8th Ed. rulebook.

Our potion is listed as 30 points, but is under our Enchanted Items section, rather than the Common Magic Items box. The new common potion is only 20 points.

Someone pointed out that items with the same name are considered to be the same item, regardless of whether they show up in the common items or not, meaning that not only can we not acquire two Potions of Strength in one army, but that we pay the higher price.

However, upon a closer look, both potions have a different set of rules. Our potion reads "The model may drink this at the start of any close combat", while the common one reads "Can be drunk at the start of any player's turn." A minor difference, but also important. With the common one you have to anticipate your character being in combat, risking your opponent charging someone else or your charge failing, and might end up saving your character from a Caress of Laniph spell during the magic phase. Our potion means you can be discerning and wait until that one combat occurs where you need the strength, but can never be in effect during someone's magic phase.

So what are people's opinions, are they two different items or are we stuck with only one potion, and with only using our rules for it?

[Hjiryon]

Unfortunately, the rules are quite clear on this:
You use the new rules, but pay the price listed in your own book.

[Maldor]

As of right now I'd agree with Hjiryon's interpretation. That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see this FAQed otherwise at some point, as I believe the intent of the "Items with the same name but different points cost rule" was to specifically address common magic items like the enchanted shield which has a different cost in old armybooks.

[Thanee]

Yeah, it would be pretty ridiculous, that everyone gets the cheaper potion but us, who actually have it in the armybook.

Bye
Thanee

[Darktan]

They are seperate items, our Potion of strength is not in the common items list, and has different rules. you could take both.

[Mr. anderson]

They are seperate items, our Potion of strength is not in the common items list, and has different rules. you could take both.

No you could not, mainly because reading the rule book will convince you otherwise. The rules are extremely clear on this, and the rules for the items are the same, it's just that their point costs differ. As long as the names are the same, they are for all intents and purposes the same item.

[Kreoss]

... the rules for the items are the same, it's just that their point costs differ. As long as the names are the same, they are for all intents and purposes the same item.

The thing is, they're not. If you read the two different rules, they effect different phases of the turn. It seems superficial until you run into a situation where it makes or breaks your turn.

Now I've never used even one Potion of Strength, and can't think of a situation where I'd ever wish I had two at a time, but it's good to get a clear idea of how the rules work before you run into someone using two of them and have to waste game time settling it.

The rules are quite clear that if "an item is listed in both here and your Warhammer Armies rulebook, use the points printed in the latter". A rule that clearly and easily handles Enchanted Shields and Swords of Battle, who have the same rules. The question is whether two items that function differently are considered the same item simply because they share a name. And if they are, which item's rule overrides the other? The older edition Army book's? Or the current BRB?

[Darktan]

i'd have to disagree with Hjiryon but partially agree with anderson, after re-reading the books.

the rule book says nothing on using the rules listed in the main book if the items name is the same, only that identical items costs are the one listed in your armybook.

either we cannot take both, as they have the same name and both are enchanted items, but use the rules and cost set in our armybook,

or we can take both as they are not the same item, yes they have the same name, but Kreoss pointed out, they have seperate rules and are so seperate items.

[Mr. anderson]

The rule book says "names" - it doesn't mention rules. There are an awful lot of weapons that give the bearer +1 strength in one form or another, but you wouldn't argue that they're all the same item, would you?

As the names are the same and the rules almost exactly the same (the strength bonus is the same, the details might be slightly different, but essentially they are the same), these items are the same and you cannot take both. Period.

[Sloeberjong]

The FAQ also refers to "Common Magic Items".

So DE have a similar magic item that does the same, only a little different and for 10 pts extra then the common equivalent...

I say we have access to both since our Potion isn't listed under "Common Magic Items". Quite simple really.

What if (I don't have the book with me, I'm at work) Cold Ones and Dark Steeds were to be on the same page...and there would be a change to "pg xx, Cold Ones" then the changes would not also apply to the Dark Steeds, right?

I say 2 potions...it's not like it's really overpowered or anything. Ours does have the benefit of being used at the start of combat instead of the turn though...

[Meteor]

It would be cool if we can take both, but I personally believe their original intention was we keep to our 30pt strength potion that has a better use anyway, and other armies without access to the said 'potion of strength' can pick the common listed 20pt one.

Having said that, it is a valid point that their intention also was to address the already listed common magic items and that our potion wasn't listed as a common magic item nor faq'd (probably overlooked it like the CoB special rules). So I wouldn't hold it against someone if I came across someone who used two potion of strength. Probably won't be a common sight anyway .

[Desert icon]

Sorry guys, Mr. Anderson is right on all his points. I find it highly amusing that there is even any discussion on this point, as it is definitively clear!

"Common Magic Items" is not an item category, it is simply a list of magic items that are accessible by all races. All items, even the "Common Magic Items" belong to their respective categories. Just because there is a potion of Strength in the "Common Magic Items" list doesn't make it different. Same name = Same item.

Then again, no matter how simple and clear-cut things may seem to be, there will always be those who see things differently.

[Sloeberjong]

No I think you're wrong. They clearly refer to the header of "common magic items". If I were to say "pg. 55 - cold ones: gain devestating charge" would you give it to the Harpies as well? No you wouldn't...i hope

To me it's clear THAT way...I realy don't understand the counter argument so i don't get the discussion either

Apparently it's not that clear cut then, and i have a very valid argument...they should have refered to all the magic items then...not just the common ones.

[Il maestro]

*WARNING: LONG POST AHEAD

I hate to be extremely controversial (actually, who am I kidding, it's like crack to me ) but I have a TOTALLY different opinion to anything here so far, so I'll spell it out nice and early and then go on to explain it...

NO ONE IS RIGHT AS THE RULES CAN CLEARLY BE INTERPRETED TWO DIFFERENT WAYS

Ok, now I have to explain myself. After reading through this topic many times, and jumping back and forth over which side to try to support, I went to the books and FAQs and realized that GW have actually left it open to interpretation. The only thing that needs to be worked out definitively is the definition of a 'magic item' - after this is done the rest falls into place. Sit back and watch the magic trick (bad pun, I know... )...

IF A MAGIC ITEM IS DEFINED BY IT'S NAME

The rulebook clearly states on p.500 that,

"If a magic item is listed both here and in your Warhammer Armies book, use the points value printed with the latter..."

Now combine this with the Dark Elves FAQ v1.1, p.2, which states,

"Page 100 - Common Magic Items
Note that if a Magic Item is listed in both an army book and the Warhammer rulebook, use the points value given in the Army Book, with the rule printed in the Warhammer rulebook."

Is the item listed in the Warhammer Rulebook? - Yes
Is the item listed in your Warhammer Armies book? - Yes
Therefore, we must use the rule in the Warhammer Rulebook with the points value in the Warhammer Army book.

Of course, there is a counter argument...

IF A MAGIC ITEM IS DEFINED BY IT'S ACTIONS

Well, if the above is the case, the rules for the 'Potion of Strength' in the Dark Elves Army book are different to those of the 'Potion of Strength' in the Warhammer Rulebook, and therefore the whole argument above concerning duplicates of the same magic items is rendered invalid, as they are not the same one.



"But if a magic item is defined by it's actions and not it's name, there would be no need to mention that the rule in the Warhammer Rulebook should be used preferentially, because if there was a differing of rules they would be considered different items and therefore exempt from this, but if they were the same rule then there would be no need for the clarification, right?"

Well that is definitely true, and it does tend to make one lean towards situation number 1, where an item is defined purely by it's name. However some might argue that the intent of this was to cover any previous edition items that were listed under common magic items and have since been upgraded, and of course it is not impossible the GW put something completely redundant in their rulebook by accident, so this alone is not definitive enough for a ruling either way.


"But it clearly says in the BRB on p.501 that the name itself can sometimes be interpreted as different things, for example an 'Ogre Blade' in fact being an 'Ogre Axe', so obviously the name is not the only defining feature of the item, right?"

Well that is a good point, as the BRB clearly does say that,

We can simply assume that his axe, hammer or other suitable hand weapon has the same properties and is, for example, an 'Ogre Axe'

which makes us lean more towards situation number 2. However, the counter-argument is that this was put in the rules as a preemptive move against WYSIWYG players who might argue that your 'Sword of Battle' is in fact an axe and therefore confers no special rules, and that this clarification directly refers to the magic weapons ("The magic weapons listed below...") and therefore not to our situation about Enchanted Items, and that it is therefore also not definitive enough for a ruling either way.

Now I know that people are going to argue and give reasons why the above is actually illogical, and there's nothing I can do against that (and please do try, I'm definitely not above being wrong ), but I am just trying to point out that both arguments can have good, solid bases to support them. So whilst I haven't really bothered addressing the original questions of 'can we take both in one army' and 'which rules do we use' (in truth, I just don't know), I don't care - I just wanted to vent like everyone else and add my two cents worth

Enjoy!

EDIT: Oh yeah, as for the fact that the FAQ rule is under the heading of 'Common Magic Items', the rule itself still refers to a 'Magic Item', so PLEASE don't try to argue that it is only talking about a small sub-set of items, they just wanted to tell you where in your book to paste this new little addition

[Hjiryon]

First of all, a "common magic item" is now defined as one that is listed in the BRB. If it's there, everyone can take it. Ergo, common magic item.

Now the question that remains is: Is "Potion of Strength" (Dark elves version) the same as "Potion of Strength" (BRB edition).
Thinking back to a few discussions on warseer, I shouldn't be surprised that someone feels there's a point to argue here, then. However:

Some items have had their effects altered between 7th and 8th edition; some of them through errata, some of them through this clause (that all the army books have); it really is very simple: The description of the item is different, not because it's not the same item, but because the rules have changed. Otherwise, I could also argue that I can still take 4526 dispel scrolls (character slots allowing), since clearly, the "Dispel Scroll" that is referred to in the army book is the 7th edition one. I just happen to be able to buy one from the BRB as well - I can only take one of those, though.
The DE faq (and all others, for that matter) clearly tell us to disregard the rules as presented in the army book if they are also present in the BRB, but to keep the points value - so you should do exactly that.

At the end of the day, the central argument is this: the faq deals sufficiently with the matter at hand. If there was an exception clause in place ("Keep using the potion of strength as a seperate item to the one in the BRB, though"), then surely it would be listed. I do not see it.

The difference between the two items is nowhere near large enough to leave the "but it's really two items" argument any room. It is ad hoc argumentation of the worst kind. Somewhere down the line, it may be faq'ed, and the DE army book's Potion of Strength may have it's name changed to "the 50% overpriced second potion of strength in a dark elf army", so you can take both. Not so at present.

If paying 10 points extra for a potion of strength is a pain, make sure you buy as warbanner somewhere as well, and it evens out.

[Meteor]

Do people seriously dig these sort of controversial topics up because they're bored or just want lots of posts and attention on their topic threads? Like the thread about some defining moment in magic concerning the wording of the word 'cast' for RoH... It really does make me wonder whether some people are trying to live under a veil of self delusion because their lists are flawed now since their items are nerfed.

I have to say that despite not liking Bitterman's way of thinking at the beginning, it really does seem like there is a common sense thinking approach that some people lack, as to what GW meant. It just sounds like people either want to take TWO str potion which is a waste of points and enchanted item slots, or they want the cheaper 20pt potion so they have 10pts leftover to fund that extra Hydra.

How does drinking it at two different phases make it a different item? Seriously? Is the water drank in the morning no longer water if drank in the afternoon? No it's still water. Oh btw, the WORDING of Warbanner in the new BRB and our army book is different, so is the points cost, it must be a different item too, despite the fact it produces THE SAME EFFECT! I'm going to open up a new thread on this issue!

They clearly refer to the header of "common magic items"

Yea, and our Potion of Strength just became a common item, unfortunately it isn't as common in our lands so it costs more, we make poisons, not potions.

[Calisson]

Our Potion of Strength just became a common item, unfortunately it isn't as common in our lands so it costs more, we make poisons, not potions.

I support that one!

[Sulla]

As the names are the same and the rules almost exactly the same (the strength bonus is the same, the details might be slightly different, but essentially they are the same), these items are the same and you cannot take both. Period.

I dunno. One can only be used at the start of your turn, one can be activated at the beginning of either players cc phase. Not really what I would call essentially the same. I would be more likely to describe it as very different.

That's the real issue. There are two similar but different working items with the same name.

I suppose you could say armybook overrides main rules, but then you are really saying it's a different magic item, so does the no duplicates rule really apply then? That's the problem to me; kind of a have your cake and eat it, sort of thing. If they are the same item, which rules do you use? If they are different, why can't you have both. Maybe they should rename the DE one The Other Potion of Strength like when they found they had two tricksters shards in the common items...

[Hjiryon]

As the names are the same and the rules almost exactly the same (the strength bonus is the same, the details might be slightly different, but essentially they are the same), these items are the same and you cannot take both. Period.

I dunno. One can only be used at the start of your turn, one can be activated at the beginning of either players cc phase. Not really what I would call essentially the same. I would be more likely to describe it as very different.

That's the real issue. There are two similar but different working items with the same name.

I suppose you could say armybook overrides main rules, but then you are really saying it's a different magic item, so does the no duplicates rule really apply then? That's the problem to me; kind of a have your cake and eat it, sort of thing. If they are the same item, which rules do you use? If they are different, why can't you have both. Maybe they should rename the DE one The Other Potion of Strength like when they found they had two tricksters shards in the common items...

The Dark Elf faq answers this question: In the case of a difference between the same item in the BRB and the army book, use the description in the BRB (but the price of the army book). There you go, problem solved. It also answers your question as to why the items are different in function: It's because the item has been changed.

[Red...]

Meteor, I think you've hit the nail on the head. I agree 100%. Not sure that it is being done maliciously, I think people are just attempting to get the maximum out of the rule book and - while that is a good thing - on the three occasions you mention, they have taken it too far and moved into the realms of slightly peculiar rules lawyering that ends up putting forward weak arguments to achieve wishful thinking.

My feeling on this one is that if GW genuinely intended for the BRB potion of strength to be different from the Dark Elf potion of strength then they would have named it differently. Same with warbanner. If there had been two new items in the rule book, called something like "Potion of might" and "battle banner", rather than two existing names, I would have agreed you can take them as well as or instead of the items listed in the dark elf book. But there isn't and so you can't. Bottom line, sorry.

[Sulla]

The Dark Elf faq answers this question: In the case of a difference between the same item in the BRB and the army book, use the description in the BRB (but the price of the army book). There you go, problem solved. It also answers your question as to why the items are different in function: It's because the item has been changed.

Well, that is in the section titled 'Common magic items'. Not Magic items. that's why all these discussions are arising...but assuming it's right, it would unfortunately make it almost completely useless on shadowblade since he hasn't been revealed at the start of the turn he wants to use it. Bummer.

[Meteor]

I reiterate because you appear to have missed my post prior to your previous one. Our Potion of Strength became a common item.

[Sulla]

I reiterate because you appear to have missed my post prior to your previous one. Our Potion of Strength became a common item.

I read your opinion, I just don't know if I agree with it yet. (Not that it really bothers me because I never have and probably never will take a potion of strength in my army).

[Arquinsiel]

The Dark Elf faq answers this question: In the case of a difference between the same item in the BRB and the army book, use the description in the BRB (but the price of the army book). There you go, problem solved. It also answers your question as to why the items are different in function: It's because the item has been changed.

Well, that is in the section titled 'Common magic items'. Not Magic items. that's why all these discussions are arising...but assuming it's right, it would unfortunately make it almost completely useless on shadowblade since he hasn't been revealed at the start of the turn he wants to use it. Bummer.

Not quite, the "start of the turn" is not necessarily the first action taken so much as everything that happens before movement (or whatever phase or sub-phase comes first now).

[EDIT] A quick check shows that there is now a sub-phase named "Start of Turn" in Movement which allows for all animosity rolls etc. Since they must all be taken simultaneously I think this shows that Shadowblade can reveal himself and drink the potion simultaneously.

Now we wait for GW to FAQ that to be wrong....

[Grimma]

The difference between being drunk at the start of turn and the beginning of close combat is very important. My Dreadlord with Sword of Ruin relies on the potion to get 2s to wound high Toughness models. I don't want to drink it at the start of turn in case I fail to get the charge distance, or if the opponents changes what might have been a hold to a flee. I played a game yesterday when this exact issue came up and I argued for the start of combat phase option, but it seems, sadly, that I was wrong. (As a point of interest, my cold ones with dreadlord and BSB with Hydra banner and +1 attack from the Cauldron killed 6 Ironguts in 1 turn, and then took out a Steam Tank)