Logo
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:51 pm



Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 
Can units from one elf book take magic items from another? 
Author Message
Dark Rider
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:34 pm
Posts: 149
Location: Middlesbrough, UK
"With the exception of the characters detailed in this book (denoted by 'K') you must use the unit profiles, points costs, equipment, options and special rules found in...blah blah blah HE, DE, WE"

And the quotation for taking... oh I don't know, magic banners, reads "May take a magic standard worth up to 50 points". Doesn't specify it has to be from the book the unit is from. Black Guard with BotWD? Anyone?

** As I'm writing this I'm beginning to recall a post I found on here a few days ago regarding being unable to take any AB magic items in an eternity king list due to the wording of a rule somewhere in the ET book. Was there ever a decision reached on this?

_________________
"When it comes to besting the enemy, there's no such thing as 'overkill.'" - Good ol' Master Bronk

Also here's a PLOG: http://www.druchii.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=76272


Sat Jan 03, 2015 10:40 pm
Profile
PhD in Dark Magic
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 592
Location: The depths of the Black Library
There's nothing in any book which suggests that units from one Elf book can take magic items which appear in another Elf army book. For example, there is nothing to support the argument that Black Guard may take the Banner of the World Dragon, or that a Shadowdancer may take the Chillblade, or that a Loremaster of Hoeth may use Calaingor's Stave.

What is less clear is whether a unit or character from a given army book may take items from that army book when fielded as part of an Elven Host (meaning Hosts of the Aestyrion, Phoenix King and Eternity King). In each book, the magic items section states that "[o]n the following pages are magic items available to [X] Elf armies", where X is either Dark, High or Wood. Elven Hosts are not Dark Elf, Wood Elf or High Elf armies. There is nothing in the character entries in the army lists in each book that refers back to the magical items listed in that book - only a reference to a points limit of magic items for that character. As a result, there is a strong argument that these items may not be taken by any character in any of the armies presented in End Times: Khaine.

In contrast, Wood Elf Glade Captains and Glade Lords (and several Wood Elf units) have specific access to enchanted arrows in their army list entries. There's no question that they have access to those arrow types.

The logical extension of this reasoning would mean that:

1. Undead Legions do not have access to magic items in the Tomb Kings and Vampire Counts books.

2. Legions of Chaos do not have access to magic items in the Beastmen and Warriors of Chaos books.

3. Vampires still have access to Vampiric Powers and Warriors of Chaos characters have access to Gifts of Chaos as stated in their army list entries, and the Gifts available to Daemons of Chaos are unaffected.

On the flip side, you could argue that the army books were not created with the End Times lists in mind, and that units from a given book should have access to the items in their army book. That's fine if your opponent/the TO agrees, but it's not what the rules say.

There is also the example of Imrik, Prince of Caledor, who has the Star Lance and can only be fielded in two of the Elven Hosts. His entry specifically states that no other character may have the Star Lance if he is fielded in an army. This suggests that the intention was that Elven Hosts could use items from the relevant books, as that text would have no meaning if units and characters could not take magical items from their corresponding army books.

Even if this position is accepted, however, there is still nothing to justify the argument that choices from one of the Elf army books may use magical items listed in another army book. However, you could still put a High Elf battle standard bearer with the Banner of the World Dragon into a unit of Black Guard or Wildwood Rangers.

_________________
"The wrath of a good man is not to be feared. They have too many rules."

"Good men don't need rules. Today is not a good time to find out why I have so many."


Sat Jan 03, 2015 11:19 pm
Profile
Dark Rider
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:34 pm
Posts: 149
Location: Middlesbrough, UK
Hmm, I'm not sure, the quote I opened my post with could be interpreted as suggesting that you can take items from other books. As far as I can tell, the reason that you can't take say, a banner from the WoC book in a DE army, is because in a normal game, you have access only to units and items from the army book for your army. In an EK list, you have access to three army books. It doesn't specifically state that units from one army book may only be equipped with items from their army book.

Unfortunately the point regarding taking AB items (or not as the case may be) seems fairly solid for not being able to do so, RAW at least. Although thank you for the point regarding Imrik, that might make it a bit easier for me to argue RAI with my gaming group.

_________________
"When it comes to besting the enemy, there's no such thing as 'overkill.'" - Good ol' Master Bronk

Also here's a PLOG: http://www.druchii.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=76272


Sat Jan 03, 2015 11:38 pm
Profile
Chosen of Khaine
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 7:35 am
Posts: 416
Location: London
Haagrum wrote:
...There is also the example of Imrik, Prince of Caledor, who has the Star Lance and can only be fielded in two of the Elven Hosts. His entry specifically states that no other character may have the Star Lance if he is fielded in an army. This suggests that the intention was that Elven Hosts could use items from the relevant books, as that text would have no meaning if units and characters could not take magical items from their corresponding army books...


Kudos on this point. Nicely isolated piece of logic. Think that clinches it for me. I'll be pitching opponents on the idea of character X being able to take items from army book X, but not army books Y or Z. i.e. Dark Elven characters to take Dark Elf army book magic items, but not High or Wood Elf magic items. That feels fair and appropriate.

_________________
Veysha Everkiss
Plog: Veysha Everkiss and the Clan of the Shadow Fox
Battle Reports: vs. Beastmen; 2000 pts, vs. High Elves; 2000 pts, vs. Beastmen; 3000 pts


Sun Jan 04, 2015 12:01 am
Profile WWW
Corsair
Corsair
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:00 pm
Posts: 8584
Location: Hag Graef
Wrathbaby wrote:
** As I'm writing this I'm beginning to recall a post I found on here a few days ago regarding being unable to take any AB magic items in an eternity king list due to the wording of a rule somewhere in the ET book. Was there ever a decision reached on this?
see: The bad side of the rules: forbidden items and magic objects and, more detailed, Magic Items for Khaine

In summary:

According to RAW, ET:K armies are not entitled to use WH army book magic objects. The Host of the Aestyrion, the Host of the Phoenix King and the Host of the Eternity King can only use BRB common magic objects.
For example, BotWD is not accessible to any unit playing an ET:K list, even if that unit comes from the HE AB.
See detailed arguments in links above, Haagrum provided most of it and I agree with all he said.

However, Imrik rule can be quoted in support of an alleged RAI, which would allow the DE, HE or WE part of an ET:K army to come with their original magic objects,
or even for DE, HE and WE magic objects to be gathered in a single pool to which the whole ET:K army lists would have access.


Discussion about RAI:
First of all, while RAW is based on words, RAI is based on interpretation; the most likely RAI is always RAI = RAW.
Only when RAW is inconsistent should people start to investigate RAI, especially if alleged RAI is to give them an advantage over RAW.

Those willing to discuss RAI can quote Imrik rule: "No other character in your army can have the Star Lance Magic Weapon from WH:HE".
There's a general principle that a rule must serve a purpose. Note, however, that this general principle is weakened by the presence of exceptions (e.g. "Sea Creature", p.75, which serves no purpose).
Still, assuming it was a relevant principle, the obvious purpose of that rule implies that without the rule, HE noblemen would have access to HE AB magic items. Therefore the presence of Imrik rule hints that they must have access to other HE AB items, and logically, army items should remain available to their respective army entries.

Pushing the reasoning further, one may wonder whether all DE/HE/WE magic items wouldn't be gathered in the same pool to which all ET:K units would get access. After all, Imrik rule forbade the use of the star Lance to all characters, including DE and WE. The same logical reasoning that a rule must serve a purpose would therefore hint that DE and WE would otherwise have access to the Star Lance.

I would also object against these alleged RAI because of fluff:
the Aestyrion would have access to the Banner of Nagarythe, i.e. the personal standard of the Witch King, which proclaims his right to rule not only Naggaroth, but the ten kingdoms of Ulthuan as well. :o_O:


My conclusion about the alleged RAI about ET:K magic objects:
- RAW is clear; there is no reason to investigate RAI.
- Alleged RAI is more powerful than RAW; there is high suspicion that the advocate of RAI just look for more power, up to borderline cheating.
- RAI discussion comes from habits that gamers wish to carry over, with the help of a single sentence, extrapolated with a very weak principle; that's very, very weak.
- The same reasoning can lead to diverse conclusions (DE objects for DE entries? DE objects for HE entries?) and there is absolutely no way to tell which conclusion would be the single RAI, knowing that RAI must be unique.
- RAI creates a fluff inconsistency, while there is no such problem with RAW.


House rule.
With the clarification above, I understand that many people wish to - and do - allow DE magic objects for DE entries, HE ones for HE entries and WE ones for WE entries.
That's fine as house rule if the opponent accepts it, knowing that it increases further the power of the ET:K armies which already gain power compared to already powerful army books.

_________________
Winds never stop blowing, Oceans are borderless. Get a ship and a crew, so the World will be ours! Today the World, tomorrow Nagg! {--|oBrotherhood of the Coast!o|--}


Sun Jan 04, 2015 7:51 am
Profile
PhD in Dark Magic
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 592
Location: The depths of the Black Library
Calisson wrote:
I would also object against these alleged RAI because of fluff:
the Aestyrion would have access to the Banner of Nagarythe, i.e. the personal standard of the Witch King, which proclaims his right to rule not only Naggaroth, but the ten kingdoms of Ulthuan as well. :o_O:


Without wanting to contest your reasoning, Calisson, this outcome is not inconsistent with the fluff and the story in End Times: Khaine.

Spoilers ahead, people.

The ET:K story is very clear that a large proportion of Malekith's army turned against him at the Battle of the Blighted Isle, due to Morathi's sorceries and enchantments used on them while in her disguise as Drusala. It is entirely consistent with that story (indeed, given the rules for that scenario, this is a distinct possibility) for the standard bearer carrying the Banner of Nagarythe to have been subverted to Morathi's will and to have joined the Aestyrion in the aftermath. What greater sign of legitimacy for Tyrion's rulership could there be for the Dark Elves than to have claimed the Witch King's personal standard? Surely, Morathi would know this - and she could have made plans accordingly.

_________________
"The wrath of a good man is not to be feared. They have too many rules."

"Good men don't need rules. Today is not a good time to find out why I have so many."


Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:19 am
Profile
Corsair
Corsair
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:00 pm
Posts: 8584
Location: Hag Graef
OK, fluff argument striked out.
Still, I don't recall Tyrion trying to rule the united Elves (including Naggaroth), but only to try to kill Malekith.

_________________
Winds never stop blowing, Oceans are borderless. Get a ship and a crew, so the World will be ours! Today the World, tomorrow Nagg! {--|oBrotherhood of the Coast!o|--}


Sun Jan 04, 2015 9:40 am
Profile
PhD in Dark Magic
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 592
Location: The depths of the Black Library
Calisson wrote:
OK, fluff argument striked out.
Still, I don't recall Tyrion trying to rule the united Elves (including Naggaroth), but only to try to kill Malekith.


You're pretty much spot on, at least in relation to how things ended. To begin with, after he drew the Widowmaker, Tyrion was trying to bring them all under his banner (no pun intended), which is why he went after the Everqueen. He was able to sway so many behind him because of his heroic status with the Asur and his new-found power as Khaine's avatar, but IIRC Morathi was the one most focused on making him into a legitimate king. He's hardly be Aenarion reborn if he couldn't unite all of the Elves under his rule.

_________________
"The wrath of a good man is not to be feared. They have too many rules."

"Good men don't need rules. Today is not a good time to find out why I have so many."


Sun Jan 04, 2015 9:59 am
Profile
Chosen of Khaine
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 7:35 am
Posts: 416
Location: London
I'd first note the posts above and linked to are fantastically thorough, well written and well thought through. You're all way ahead of me in terms of knowing and applying the rules.

I did, however, think this was a little strong;

Calisson wrote:
...Alleged RAI is more powerful than RAW; there is high suspicion that the advocate of RAI just look for more power, up to borderline cheating...


For "cheating" to be a fair term, I think the person's intent has to be purely one of seeking advantage. More often, I think people are merely seeking to reconcile GW's oversights, mistakes and haphazard writing with common sense.

When you note;

Calisson wrote:
...Only when RAW is inconsistent should people start to investigate RAI...


I think you are 100% right in two cases;
(i) For tournament play or similar, where a single set of rules with zero ambiguity must be established on a temporary basis, however flawed/inconsistent with fluff in the longer term. Otherwise there'd just be chaos.
(ii) In general outside of tournament play, so long as you trust GW.

I think the issue is that people *rightly* don't trust GW to have been rigorous in framing, thinking through or writing the rules. So whilst I entirely support the spirit of the "first RAW, then RAI only in the case of inconsistency" statement, I think it's only a workable position in a universe blessed by an altogether more rigorous, more professional GW.

Omissions in legal documents are typically intelligent, intentional and efficiently frame the intended outcomes/structures/implications/etc. Omissions in GW rules are frequently mistakes, oversights or other amateurish blunders precipitated by slipshod thought and second rate editing! In that environment (and outside of competitive play) I think it's fair to argue a common sense position in contradiction of RAW.

I think this is one of those times.

If the ET:K lists aren't able to take previously extant magic items, then logically something must have happened to those items. Their owners would otherwise go to war with them, for obvious reasons. In the longer term (Eternity King), with lands abandoned and flooded, Arcane Unforgings being cast all over the place, etc. I think there's actually a pretty good argument that many relics are lost. Personally, this feels like a change in paradigm though, and you'd expect GW to comment on it explicitly.

Occam's razor (fluff/common sense wise) just suggests people go to war with their magic items, forming their new factions with their kit in hand, not discarding it and absent comment on them being lost/destroyed, they will still keep hold of them for the future.

Presented with this argument for another race/army list I'd be happy that my opponent was acting and arguing sensibly. I might disagree, but I wouldn't view it an attempt to cheat. And that's all my ramble intends to address!

In terms of what the rules need to be for proper competitive play, one obviously can't take anything other than the forensic, objective approach and the notes above do that at a level I couldn't hope to approach!

_________________
Veysha Everkiss
Plog: Veysha Everkiss and the Clan of the Shadow Fox
Battle Reports: vs. Beastmen; 2000 pts, vs. High Elves; 2000 pts, vs. Beastmen; 3000 pts


Sun Jan 04, 2015 4:30 pm
Profile WWW
Corsair
Corsair
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:00 pm
Posts: 8584
Location: Hag Graef
Well, you're right of course, "cheating" is too harsh to describe someone who does not know, in good faith, that he plays not by the rules.
That's why I used "borderline", with the intention to soften that word. If anyone was offended by "borderline cheating", please accept my apologizes.
Actually, merely asking what the rule allows proves the purity of the intention.

-=-=-

Back to your argument, I have one difficulty with the starting point:
I would be extremely cautious when reading an argument relying on someone else not being professional.
GW writers deserve dignity like any other human being. Furthermore, they have designed a game, WH, which works despite being extremely complex.
Even if sometimes the wording is not perfect, it happens only for a very tiny minority of the articles.
I personally have great respect for people able to write hundreds of pages of rules with so few discrepancies.

On the other hand, what I have seen happening too often is gamers who wish a rule to be different from what is written, and rather than changing their mind, they pretend that GW authors don't know how to write what they mean. Of course, the gamer is more clever than GW, has more common sense and knows better than them their own intentions. Often, this kind of gamer asks conirmation on the Internet, and when he finds out that someone does not share his wish, he claims that the rule was unclear (i.e. it did not clearly prove his point, no wonder why - and he requires an FAQ rather than changing his mind.

This is not your case, fortunately. Please don't fall in that trap!

-=-=-

Back to the substance of your argument,
You can argue with common sense against RAW, of course, and you bring some valid arguments.
But these arguments do not prove that RAW are wrong, they only show that different rules have some advantages over RAW.
If you feel that these advantages are sufficient to justify not playing RAW, please do and play your house rules as you wish.
Just don't expect rule lawyers to endorse your interpretation as RAW.

_________________
Winds never stop blowing, Oceans are borderless. Get a ship and a crew, so the World will be ours! Today the World, tomorrow Nagg! {--|oBrotherhood of the Coast!o|--}


Sun Jan 04, 2015 6:13 pm
Profile
Malekith's Best Friend
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 4:47 am
Posts: 1042
You guys astound me with this repeated argument. While I whole heartedly agree that Tomb Kings units cannot use Vampire magic items the units CAN use any items in their respective books.

Please tell me how you get past the first paragraph (I'm using the one from Khaine here) on page 20 under Elven Host Army Lists that states, "An Elven Host can include the units listed in the relevant army list on the following pages. With the exception of characters detailed in this book (denoted by 'K'), you must use the unit profiles, points costs, equipment, options and special rules found in either Warhammer: Dark Elves, Warhammer: High Elves, or Warhammer Wood Elves. Together these army list entries should be used alongside the 'Armies of the End Times' section (see below)?

Tell me how, under any plan English reading of the rules, that 'options and special rules' do NOT included the magic items lists. Really, your argument ignores the elephant in the corner. :roll:


Sun Jan 04, 2015 7:08 pm
Profile
PhD in Dark Magic
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 592
Location: The depths of the Black Library
Gidean wrote:
Tell me how, under any plain English reading of the rules, that 'options and special rules' do NOT included the magic items lists. Really, your argument ignores the elephant in the corner. :roll:


Because at no point in any army list entry does it state that characters from a particular book may select magic items described in that book. The wording is always to the effect that a model may have up to a certain amount of points worth of magic items, or that a unit may take a magic banner worth up to a certain amount of points.

In contrast, the wording in the race-specific magic items section in each book states that those items may be taken in a [X] Elf army (where X is Dark, High or Wood). An Elven Host, whatever its stripes, is not a Dark Elf, High Elf or Wood Elf army, although it is composed of models from one or more of the Elf army books.

Personally, my preference is for selections from each book to have access to the items from their respective army book, consistent with the apparent effect of Imrik's rules concerning the Star Lance. Elven Hosts are stronger than their constituent armies - as a matter of balance, I have no issue with someone ruling that the Hosts do not have access to the Book of Hoeth, the Sacrificial Dagger or the Acorn of Ages. Otherwise, there would be no benefit in playing Dark Elves, High Elves or Wood Elves instead of a Host of the Eternity King. I'm just aware that there is an argument each way, that a serious rules-lawyer would potentially contest their inclusion, and that in tournament play it would be worth confirming this point with the TO before finalising an army list.

_________________
"The wrath of a good man is not to be feared. They have too many rules."

"Good men don't need rules. Today is not a good time to find out why I have so many."


Last edited by Haagrum on Sun Jan 04, 2015 7:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.



Sun Jan 04, 2015 7:33 pm
Profile
Chosen of Khaine
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2014 7:35 am
Posts: 416
Location: London
Calisson wrote:
GW writers deserve dignity like any other human being. Furthermore, they have designed a game, WH, which works despite being extremely complex.
Even if sometimes the wording is not perfect, it happens only for a very tiny minority of the articles. I personally have great respect for people able to write hundreds of pages of rules with so few discrepancies.


I may have been harsh here - apologies. Re-learning the game after a few years away, I do find areas where a sentence extra (like all this above!) could have prevented confusion and it does feel like they could have thought harder and phrased things more exactly. When you spend your time dealing with the 1% that was done badly, you miss the 99% that was done well. Likewise, I make more mistakes with rules that are written clearly than they make writing rules unclearly - so I'm not really in a position to get too frustrated about it just yet.

Calisson wrote:
But these arguments do not prove that RAW are wrong... Just don't expect rule lawyers to endorse your interpretation as RAW.


Absolutely agree, and I wouldn't for a moment expect them to. I think there's a need though to simultaneously (i) apply the correct, by the letter rules right now, whether we agree with them or not, but also (ii) as a community recognise potential errors or oversights (and I'd include contradictions of rule and fluff), discuss them and pressure GW into addressing them one way or another in more explicit updates and errata. Sometimes (i) forgets (ii), I guess that was all I was rambling on about. Thanks for the patience with it!

_________________
Veysha Everkiss
Plog: Veysha Everkiss and the Clan of the Shadow Fox
Battle Reports: vs. Beastmen; 2000 pts, vs. High Elves; 2000 pts, vs. Beastmen; 3000 pts


Sun Jan 04, 2015 7:42 pm
Profile WWW
Corsair
Corsair
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:00 pm
Posts: 8584
Location: Hag Graef
Haagrum provides perfectly the explanation.

The only thing I can think to add is a concrete example.

Let's start an Aestyrion list and see whether we can include a Supreme Sorceress with the Sacrificial Dagger.
ET:K p.20."An Elven Host can include the units listed in the relevant army list on the following pages. With the exception of characters detailed in this book (denoted by 'K'), you must use the unit profiles, points costs, equipment, options and special rules found in either Warhammer: Dark Elves, Warhammer: High Elves, or Warhammer Wood Elves. Together these army list entries should be used alongside the 'Armies of the End Times' section (see below)"

Lest's move to the Host of Aestyrion page.
p.21 includes "Supreme Sorceress (DE)".
It means that we can include in an army list belonging to the Host of Aestyrion a unit "Supreme Sorceress" found in the DE AB, along with all the unit's options.

We look now at DE AB p.86 and find out that a SS can take up to 100 pts of magic items. No detail is provided about the source of magic items.

Magic items are defined in BRB p.500: "Each WH AB describes in detail the many different kinds of magic item that each army can use. Here we shall examine the magic items that are commonly used by all races."
As we wish to take the Sacrificial Dagger, we move to DE AB, where we can read p.62: "On the following pages are magic items available to DE armies."

Now comes the question: does our SS belong to a DE army?
The answer is clearly no, she belongs to a Host of Aestyrion.
So the condition mentioned p.500 of the BRB, and again p.62 of DE AB, is not met.
She cannot use DE specific items.

We can use her option to take 100 pts of magic objects, but the magic objects available are only the common BRB ones, no matter how hard one may wish.

-=-=-
Gidean wrote:
Tell me how, under any plan English reading of the rules, that 'options and special rules' do NOT included the magic items lists.
I hoped my English was accurate enough. ;)

-=-=-
flatworldsedge wrote:
I think there's a need though to simultaneously (i) apply the correct, by the letter rules right now, whether we agree with them or not, but also (ii) as a community recognise potential errors or oversights (and I'd include contradictions of rule and fluff), discuss them and pressure GW into addressing them one way or another in more explicit updates and errata.
Sure!
That's what we have done for the DE AB (see "FAQ" on middle top of your screen), and that's what we're doing at present for ET:K rules.

_________________
Winds never stop blowing, Oceans are borderless. Get a ship and a crew, so the World will be ours! Today the World, tomorrow Nagg! {--|oBrotherhood of the Coast!o|--}


Sun Jan 04, 2015 8:51 pm
Profile
Malekith's Best Friend
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 4:47 am
Posts: 1042
I just think when they tell you to use the special rules and options from the other books they are telling us to use the items listed therein. As soon as I read that I had no question in my mind and I am a lawyer use to scrutenizing rules and laws. If you all want to read more into it then I won't be able to convince you otherwise.


Mon Jan 05, 2015 5:02 pm
Profile
PhD in Dark Magic
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 592
Location: The depths of the Black Library
Gidean wrote:
I just think when they tell you to use the special rules and options from the other books they are telling us to use the items listed therein. As soon as I read that I had no question in my mind and I am a lawyer use to scrutenizing rules and laws. If you all want to read more into it then I won't be able to convince you otherwise.


Ordinarily, I would agree (and as I've said, my preferred position matches yours). Lawyers unite! :D

Unfortunately, there is an express instruction not to use certain special rules as they appear in the other books for the Elven Hosts, but no statement that the Elven Hosts may use the magic items from the various Elf army books. The entries in the books themselves do not refer to the race-specific magic items, just the model's maximum points allowance for magic items. This could be contrasted with the entries for Vampires, Chaos characters and Daemons, which provide specific references to Vampiric Powers, Gifts and Mutations and Daemonic Gifts, respectively.

Ultimately the question is one of interpretation and inference. Both your reading and Calisson's are open on the plain words of the relevant materials. I prefer the view that models chosen from a given army book have access to the magic items in that army book, largely because of Imrik's particular rules, but I can see the merits in each position. If I were advising two players on the point, I would suggest that they try to agree before it becomes a point of contention (i.e. when they're drafting army lists).

_________________
"The wrath of a good man is not to be feared. They have too many rules."

"Good men don't need rules. Today is not a good time to find out why I have so many."


Mon Jan 05, 2015 7:50 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 16 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software