Whip of agony

[Tou84]

the whip of agony states that it grants str5 and amrourpiercing due to being
a beastmasters scourge. So the question is does it grant the extra attack
when fielded with as solo or with a shield, as in errata it says for beastmasters
scourge "str as user, extra attack, armour piercing"?

[Dyvim tvar]

Yes. Armor Piercing, Strength 5, and +1 Attack while only requiring 1 hand to use-- great bargain for 25 points.

[Liquidedust]

Yes. Armor Piercing, Strength 5, and +1 Attack while only requiring 1 hand to use-- great bargain for 25 points.

That is the majoritys interpretation, including my own. However some people claim that all mundane traits of a weapon are stripped when it is magical, which might be what the occasional person might argue against you when you bring the whip.

[Flash29]

which is silly, why else would they define the type of weapon, i mean would they allow you to use crimson death onehander, because it doesn't have the halberd two hands requirement? would they they say you can't use dagger of hotek as a additional hand weapon even though it clearly states so? would they not have made executioner axe a great weapon , rather then list all the restriction(it isn't a great weapon because it would otherwise confer the 2+ strenth).

@liquidedust : you know some silly people.

[Dyvim tvar]

Magic weapons commonly reference a mundane weapon type in their description, the obvious purpose being as a form of shorthand. Deathpiercer and Soulrender are additional examples from the Dark Elf book. There would be no reason to reference the mundane weapon type if it had no effect.

More important, nothing in the rules says to ignore this type of language in the item descriptions.

[Liquidedust]

which is silly, why else would they define the type of weapon, i mean would they allow you to use crimson death onehander, because it doesn't have the halberd two hands requirement? would they they say you can't use dagger of hotek as a additional hand weapon even though it clearly states so? would they not have made executioner axe a great weapon , rather then list all the restriction(it isn't a great weapon because it would otherwise confer the 2+ strenth).

@liquidedust : you know some silly people.

Then reread page 173 in the rulebook, "unless otherwise stated, a magic weapon is treated as a hand weapon, and follow the rules for such".

Some exceptions though, cannot be used to conver a parry save with a shield and acannot be used with an additional hand weapon to confer an extra attack.

So unless stated otherwise all magic weapons -are- one handed in this edition.

[Dyvim tvar]

Right. And if it includes the words "Lance" or "Great Weapon" in the description, then it is "otherwise stated" and the item follows those rules rather than those for a hand weapon.

[Liquidedust]

Right. And if it includes the words "Lance" or "Great Weapon" in the description, then it is "otherwise stated" and the item follows those rules rather than those for a hand weapon.

Thing is though, I am not disagreeing with anyone in here really. Just pointing out some stuff where you will encounter people who has read A and therefore will assume A even when it is B.

The only real exception to "unless stated otherwise" is probably runic weapons though unless I remember wrong (all runic weapons become 1 handed or something along those lines, no matter what weapon you started out with)

[Flash29]

if one states that the weapon is a weapon of type X rather then a hand weapon (x being beastmaster scourge, great weapon, spear, lance,...) then I do believe it is otherwise stated. And I doubt anyone with a lick of sense would argue otherwise.

[Liquidedust]

if one states that the weapon is a weapon of type X rather then a hand weapon (x being beastmaster scourge, great weapon, spear, lance,...) then I do believe it is otherwise stated. And I doubt anyone with a lick of sense would argue otherwise.

Tell that to the lifetaker, which doesn't have the armour piercing rule even though it is a repeater crossbow .

[Dyvim tvar]

You need to distinguish the fluff text from the actual item rules.

[Saintofm]

I sent an email to GW asking this. I should get a response in a few days.

[Dyvim tvar]

Good luck with that.

[Vulcan]

Tell that to the lifetaker, which doesn't have the armour piercing rule even though it is a repeater crossbow .

It's S4 so it has the same AP capabilites as S3 AP.

What do you want out of a 30-point weapon? 3 S4 shots that always hit on 2+ is pretty nice if you ask me!

[Liquidedust]

Tell that to the lifetaker, which doesn't have the armour piercing rule even though it is a repeater crossbow .

It's S4 so it has the same AP capabilites as S3 AP.

What do you want out of a 30-point weapon? 3 S4 shots that always hit on 2+ is pretty nice if you ask me!

Not really what we discussed, so do not try and plaster an opinon on me that's even quite rude.

[Omnichron]

I don't really see how they could say that the whip of agony didn't use the beastmasters scourge as base. It refers to that exact weapon, and the army book with FAQ > BRB.

As for the lifetaker, it's specified in the FAQ that it doesn't get AP... so there's no more question about that matter anymore.

It'd be silly if weapons like Soulrender ended up as a hand weapon with AP just because of a change from 7th to 8th edition. Especially as it is refered to as a great weapon. As others says, it's "otherwise stated" in our army book.

[Red...]

I think you're trying to read into rules where there is no need to.

Then reread page 173 in the rulebook, "unless otherwise stated, a magic weapon is treated as a hand weapon, and follow the rules for such".

Some exceptions though, cannot be used to conver a parry save with a shield and acannot be used with an additional hand weapon to confer an extra attack.

So unless stated otherwise all magic weapons -are- one handed in this edition.

Whip of Agony states it is a beastmasters scourge. Hence it isotherwise stated.

[Liquidedust]

I think you're trying to read into rules where there is no need to.

Then reread page 173 in the rulebook, "unless otherwise stated, a magic weapon is treated as a hand weapon, and follow the rules for such".

Some exceptions though, cannot be used to conver a parry save with a shield and acannot be used with an additional hand weapon to confer an extra attack.

So unless stated otherwise all magic weapons -are- one handed in this edition.

Whip of Agony states it is a beastmasters scourge. Hence it isotherwise stated.

That quote was not in reference to Whip of Agony though if you re-read what I replied to.

[Saintofm]

So lets asume because it's a magic beastmaster scourge that it's an armor peircing S5 hand weapon, and that it's magica; one hand as it doesn't specify being paired up or allowable to be paired up like Dagger of Hoteck or Fencing Blades.


ANd yes, it will take the same time it takes to have a baby for the FAG guys to get back to me.

[Omnichron]

So lets asume because it's a magic beastmaster scourge that it's an armor peircing S5 hand weapon, and that it's magica

... and extra attack, as it specifices on the beastmasters whip (in the FAQ) that it gives the extra attack special rule. So you can have a shield as well and still get +1 attack

If we get Whip of Agony in the next army book, I'll bet it's much weaker than today (Or higher priced).

[Liquidedust]

So lets asume because it's a magic beastmaster scourge that it's an armor peircing S5 hand weapon, and that it's magica

... and extra attack, as it specifices on the beastmasters whip (in the FAQ) that it gives the extra attack special rule. So you can have a shield as well and still get +1 attack

If we get Whip of Agony in the next army book, I'll bet it's much weaker than today (Or higher priced).

It is a quite nice weapon, and most certainly a fair bit underpriced