Hi all,

I've been having some problems facing the new wood elves.

More specifically the waystone lvl4 and way watcher + lots of woods combo. That unit can pretty much teleport anywhere on the board! Meanwhile a strong line of 40 poison glade guards and another unit of way watchers kill my army as I try to advance.

How can I deal with that?

Wings of Purity wrote:
Hi all,
I've been having some problems facing the new wood elves.
More specifically the waystone lvl4 and way watcher + lots of woods combo. That unit can pretty much teleport anywhere on the board! Meanwhile a strong line of 40 poison glade guards and another unit of way watchers kill my army as I try to advance.
How can I deal with that?

Shoot back. Shooting and magic missiles of any kind will gives them problems. MSU works well too, as wood elves seem to be bunching into large units to maximize the effects of the buff spells.
-Matt

Agreed on the magic missiles bit. I can't really engage them directly since they're so mobile usually. Warp lightning and scorch really lessened their numbers over time though. Their armor is made of absolute crap. Those sisters of twilight or whatever they're called are fairly well protected though.

Wood elf shooting is pretty crazy these days. Not sure if my opponent got it right but poisoned shooting, shooting that takes no negative modifiers, shooting that goes through armor completely and maybe one or two more. They have a lot of specialist type shots though I think I heard only one type per round or something. I'll tell you I'm just glad I don't play an army like bretonnia against those things. I'd last all of two seconds against those armor avoiding arrows.

I don't know about specific builds but yeah usually the best way to handle wood elves is magic missiles and similar. The opponent I faced had MSU wood elves so I imagine having MSU units wouldn't always be the best idea since they can split their fire better among more targets. It does make magic missiles effective against em though.

... Drop pod in some salamandars and burn those Ent devils down.

Against many targets, a high elf with a long bow is better than Glade Guard. It's not saying that High Elf Archers are good, but rather that Glade Guard are fairly expensive for what you get.

Take the bodkins vs Brettonians.
BS 4, save -3, sounds good right?
But, it's 17 points a model.
A unit of 14 (248 points), downs slightly less than 2 knights a turn average at range.
Then what happens if brettonians take some longbowmen as well? If they have the arrows to kill a few knights, they don't have the arrows to kill a horde of bowmen.

Lore of fire is a god send. As well as being flaming attacks for the ents (and I think dryads though I expect they will see less play in the new book) and one of the best magic missiles as your sig, but the flame cage penalizes their reliance on movement. What do you play?

I've not had a problem with my TK, I was worried that they would smoke my big stuff with poison before I could do too much, but elves die the open, just as well as they do hiding in woods from my bowfire. Skullapults do excellent. CAsket is ok, elves have solid LD and can spread out quickly. Their wildriders have poor choices of targets Either hordes of WS 6 skellies or T8. they could go after the cheap 10 man archer units I like to use. but if you beat them you tend to get t8 in the return. My scorps have done terrible. and the Hierotitan has been money with his shems on a 3+ I toss 1 dice at it almost every magic phase. No one likes to waste dice against a simple flaming magic missle vs TK's magic phase, but WE tend to not have a choice.

If your army has any teleporting-type abilities, use them. Wood Elves dominate at range against small, elite units. However, if said units can close the distance, WE will be slaughtered. Alternatively, field a few hordes. WE are awesome at downing expensive, important stuff, but I can say from experience that a huge horde of goblins is more terrifying than a dragon, Just be careful with moving them- the few CC units we have are actually quite good against hordes.

@Wings of Purity: What army do you play? That will help us give you some reasonable options.

Wings of Purity wrote:
Hi all,

I've been having some problems facing the new wood elves.

More specifically the waystone lvl4 and way watcher + lots of woods combo. That unit can pretty much teleport anywhere on the board! Meanwhile a strong line of 40 poison glade guards and another unit of way watchers kill my army as I try to advance.

How can I deal with that?

A level 4 can afford the acorn (+D3 forests) and thats all, you'd need a second level 3/4 to take the waystone in combination with that.

That's a LOT of points to just ferry around one unit full of T3 no armor models.

Magic missile it. Direct damage it, shoot it. Etc.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
Against many targets, a high elf with a long bow is better than Glade Guard. It's not saying that High Elf Archers are good, but rather that Glade Guard are fairly expensive for what you get.

Take the bodkins vs Brettonians.
BS 4, save -3, sounds good right?
But, it's 17 points a model.
A unit of 14 (248 points), downs slightly less than 2 knights a turn average at range.
Then what happens if brettonians take some longbowmen as well? If they have the arrows to kill a few knights, they don't have the arrows to kill a horde of bowmen.

Well I wouldn't know since I don't have the book.

A guy I faced seemed to have everything and he put it all in forests or just moved around with everybody. There's also the DT deal to worry about and stand and shoot.

My only opponent plays wood elves. I always manage to beat him once I have defeated his mages. Remember he can only have one arrow type per army. So only one squad can have poison while another might have the no movement modifier one.

No mages and he struggles to adequately buff his units, which die when looked at. Also light skirmish units do a heap. My skinks can march and shoot so speed gets you in quick. Make sure your hammer units are protected because if you havent killed his mages, their hammers will be buffed to no end.

His models are so expensive, the more he takes, the more of an advantage you have believe it or not. They are good but pricey. My 7 point javelin skinks put his archers to shame in small units of 12.

Once the mages are gone he may have heaps of single characters with crazy bows annoying the hell out of you, ignore them till last, its better to kill of his expensive magic arrow men first.

I find speed and winning the magic war is the best step to victory.

My only opponent plays wood elves. I always manage to beat him once I have defeated his mages. Remember he can only have one arrow type per army. So only one squad can have poison while another might have the no movement modifier one.

There is no rule like that at all in the book.

Really? He said something like magic items can only be taken once per army or something like that? So only one unit can take an arrow type. Much like how I cant take a channeling staff on each of my mages or something. If he has just misread that then im sure he will be happy to know it. So one unit have the poison arrows, while no other unit can take it.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Really? He said something like magic items can only be taken once per army or something like that? So only one unit can take an arrow type. Much like how I cant take a channeling staff on each of my mages or something. If he has just misread that then im sure he will be happy to know it. So one unit have the poison arrows, while no other unit can take it.

Those are magic items he is thinking of.

The 'special unit arrrows' are those that can be taken per model in a unit, they can be taken on as many units as you want.

Ok cool, well that shakes things up a bit, my game tonight may be a bit more interesting...

Cheers

Saldiven wrote:
@Wings of Purity: What army do you play? That will help us give you some reasonable options.

My mistake, shoulda mentioned that earlier. I'm currently playing a high elves list that consist of roughly:

45 archers in 3 units
lvl 4 w/ BoH
Loremaster
28PG
Frost chicken
2 RBT
2x5sisters
5reavers

Don't want to derail the topic but about the 0-1 for arrows subject:
People are debating the topic, but the two only real effects of saying that those magic arrows are enchanted items means that they:
1) can be arcane unforged (not very useful against RnF)
2) cannot be duplicated

I'm not starting a YMDC argument here, so if you want to argue that point, do so in the correct section. This was just to inform about the reason of the questions about the arrows

I always thought they meant magic items in gear like for character models.

Things are getting a little weird with fantasy with the units which can cast spells. I guess this is the third unit that can do that at least outside of buff wagons. So far chaos daemons, dark elves and wood elves now have those units. Also just a question as I didn't see wood elf magic cavalry in action how do they compare to warlocks? They didn't seem that different but I haven't faced enough of either yet.

They are not magic items, there's nowhere on the book that says they are a magic item. Assuming something is a magic item because of it is taken for a few points and have special rules is like saying Tau is a combat oriented army because Kroots beat guardsmen...

As I said, this part belongs to a YMDC post

I do believe that WE are indeed VERY fragile when subjected to a shooting contest
Ok their bowmen are great, but they are expensive and -even with a defensive forest- not that hard to shoot at
I can see lots of armies happy to go toe to toe against them shooting-wise
Just need to be careful about counter-attacks by fast units that pack a punch (Wild Riders and Warhawks to a lesser extent)

Wings of Purity wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
@Wings of Purity: What army do you play? That will help us give you some reasonable options.

My mistake, shoulda mentioned that earlier. I'm currently playing a high elves list that consist of roughly:

45 archers in 3 units
lvl 4 w/ BoH
Loremaster
28PG
Frost chicken
2 RBT
2x5sisters
5reavers

Use the reavers speed to your advantage. Shoot at him, and use Loremasters Fireball to blast his units. Have the sisters shoot every turn that they can. You can out magic them but you need to be careful and consider what spells to dispel. The frost phoenix should try and make it into combat with their mages unit as soon as possible. What lore do you tend to use with HE? Because walk between worlds from high magic is a godsend when it comes to dealing with fast moving teleporting units like WE. The archers should get into position and shoot. You may want to consider getting a fire phoenix - the frost heart is great but I think against WE the fire phoenix has the edge.

Wings of Purity wrote:
They are not magic items, there's nowhere on the book that says they are a magic item. Assuming something is a magic item because of it is taken for a few points and have special rules is like saying Tau is a combat oriented army because Kroots beat guardsmen...

Page 37 Wood Elf Book. Second section under enchanted arrows. second sentence: "These are enchanted items, but do not prevent a model from having a second enchanted item"

The prevalence of magic casting units is interesting, until the DE book, only horrors were the only one who could. There are others but are bound spells (Casket, Hierotitan, empire trains, and I think VC are bound. Bell can too, with scorch, but that's wacky like most of that book anyways)

 Acardia wrote:

Wings of Purity wrote:
They are not magic items, there's nowhere on the book that says they are a magic item. Assuming something is a magic item because of it is taken for a few points and have special rules is like saying Tau is a combat oriented army because Kroots beat guardsmen...

Page 37 Wood Elf Book. Second section under enchanted arrows. second sentence: "These are enchanted items, but do not prevent a model from having a second enchanted item"

The prevalence of magic casting units is interesting, until the DE book, only horrors were the only one who could. There are others but are bound spells (Casket, Hierotitan, empire trains, and I think VC are bound. Bell can too, with scorch, but that's wacky like most of that book anyways)

And I stand corrected


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I've been running lore of shadow for a while now. But I think with my new idea of MSU High elves I will be running High lore, since soul quench and WBW are both so powerful not just against wood elves...

Thanks guys.

It wasn't easy but I managed to out-magic my opponent with lots of warpstone tokens in the triple warlock build (each with warp lightning). It was a close game but I won and against a really good player. So yeah first big win in a while. I should probably drop some stuff so that I can fit more units and such in. I may be spending too much on characters.

Wood elf armor and wards are pretty gak though i'll admit those sisters should be heavily protected against magic.

That said they were normally an orcs and goblins player and had to deal with certain disagreements. Only thing I cared about was the ability to have warp lightning on each of my warlocks since they can all substitute that spell and all should be able to have it. I thought it was pretty clear that if you substitute a spell for something else because the rulebook says you can that multiples of that wizard can have the same spell. Therefore 3 warlocks can be subbed to have warp lightning which is helpful against skirmishers and small elite armies.

Yes, all warlocks can have warp-lightning as it is indeed their default substitution spell ("signature" really)

I played against them yesterday with my all mobile empire. WE can't do well vs a Steam Tank. Magic Missiles work wonders.

 Pyeatt wrote:
... Drop pod in some salamandars and burn those Ent devils down.

The OP has later said that he plays High Elves. Only Lizardmen have Salamanders and even then I'm not sure what a drop pod is. Did you get that from the rough translation of a Slann's belch?

The shoot them back plan worked wonders.
2 doom divers and 3 direct damage spells was all it took.
The manglers and 6 chariots forced him to use his shooting on my chaff. By the time he was safe from the manglers and chariots, the orc infantry were on him and half his guys were dead from magic/shooting.
Opponent conceded on turn 3 rather than being tabled.

-Matt

 Wilytank wrote:

 Pyeatt wrote:
... Drop pod in some salamandars and burn those Ent devils down.

The OP has later said that he plays High Elves. Only Lizardmen have Salamanders and even then I'm not sure what a drop pod is. Did you get that from the rough translation of a Slann's belch?

He's making a 40k joke.

 Sasori wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:

 Pyeatt wrote:
... Drop pod in some salamandars and burn those Ent devils down.

The OP has later said that he plays High Elves. Only Lizardmen have Salamanders and even then I'm not sure what a drop pod is. Did you get that from the rough translation of a Slann's belch?

He's making a 40k joke.

No gak.

 Wilytank wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:

 Pyeatt wrote:
... Drop pod in some salamandars and burn those Ent devils down.

The OP has later said that he plays High Elves. Only Lizardmen have Salamanders and even then I'm not sure what a drop pod is. Did you get that from the rough translation of a Slann's belch?

He's making a 40k joke.

No gak.

Hey, just making sure.

So far what I have found works well against the WE are several tactics combined into a comprehensive strategy. WE are no longer a one trick pony that fall apart when the trick fails, they have real teeth now but are fragile like no other.

-Magic missiles, preferably cheap ~4-10 kills against T3 no armour save ones. You really just need to pound his chaff, deep wood scouts, waywatchers, and/or wild riders with 4-10 casualties and they will either be panic, dead, or too few to matter. HE do this amazingly as with the book of hoeth they can one dice cheap spells and overwhelm the dispel dice pool. MM do a lot against WE as they are an expensive, fragile army that hits hard and fast and usually depend on to hit modifiers to mitigate damage.
-Cheap, reviving, or ward save blocks. This becomes even better if you can be T4 as that is the worst cost effectiveness point for the WE arrows. However WE shooting is great against expensive high T models (hagbane arrows), expensive high armour save units (ignore armour save waywatchers), skirmishers (trueflight), and regenerating (starfire arrows) but a WE list will struggle to put enough wounds to be meaningful on Vamp reviving ghoul blocks, vamp reviving zombie trains, skaven slave blocks, and a big phoenix life magic block. These will not win the game for you but you can drastically cut down the board's size if you can keep the chaff from redirecting your blocks.
-Cavalry with good armour saves supported by killing the waywatchers and/or blocking the metal mage. If you can catch the archers with even a small melee unit you will probably run them down.
-Chaff is more important than ever. WE can deal with chaff very easily and will take you apart piece meal if they win the chaff battle. Therefore you really need to remove the WE chaff and have something of your own to limit the board and corner the WE pts. To this end I have seen some interesting uses of small 5 man silver helm units and the like which are fast enough to deal with MSU type forces and tough enough to survive the normal anti chaff firepower.

-Tomb kings shooting. Not suffering from to hit modifiers makes tomb kings an army that can effectively win a shoot out against WE.
-Dwarfs are the other army that have a chance in a shoot out. It is kind of boring though and will be a close one against a savy WE general. If you can keep WE from your warmachines (difficult but not impossible) then you have a much better chance. Your big saving grace is your T4 which is a bad cost efficiency for the WE shooting.
-Skaven can MM the WE while their slaves shrug off the damage.
-HE can MM very very well, their BotWD is a horror for the WE to deal with as only the waywatchers are likely to lack enchanted arrows.

Getting into a shooting war with WE is a loosing proposition for most armies. The WE have a 30" range and they essentially will have 3 varieties of shooting to deal with;
1) trueflight glade guard; these guys will move to within 30" usually within a forest or behind skirmishers, shoot, and then keep you at long range with their free movements. GG will almost always get the drop on you and so they will always be 1 turn ahead in the shoot out and never suffer from negative to hit modifiers. Your chaff dies very quickly to these.
2) Deepwood scouts with hagbane arrows; these guys are skirmishers and can scout deploy. They also get to march and then shoot. Poison actually does very similar damage with a -2 to hit and +0 to hit therefore you will find your warmachines and monsters under attack turn 1 and very possibly dead.
3) Waywatchers; ignore armour saves is brutal against those expensive Sv1+/2+ units. The positive is that they loose a lot of umph from the negative to hit modifiers they tend to wrack up. The bad news is that they scout and skirmish so the only reason the get negative to hit modifiers is usually screening and you chasing the unit down. These guys are so expensive that even a single fireball going into them can often get you 40+ pts.

What that all means is that you will probably have to move forward to even be in long range. This leaves you at -3 to hit or worse (-1 long range, -1 move, -1 skirmish) and often at -4 or even -5...so unless you are tomb kings, have similar ranges, or don't roll to hit a shoot out is probably not the way to go.

Sorry for the text wall.

I think it depends really. Sisters of Thorn had like a 4+/4++ or something plus magic resistance 2. You can't magic that down unless you have a test or die spell. The only skaven spells that can are an I test or die (which isn't good vs a high I army like most elf units) and 13th spell (which can't be used on a unit that isn't specifically infantry).

This army is kind of weird to face. The triple warlock build definitely seems to work against it with my skaven (provided you have enough warpstone tokens). Also charging into woods against wood elves could be a bad idea since if you don't win the fight you aren't steadfast against them considering woods negates steadfast for a rank-and-file with its majority of models in the forest. A shooting contest might be possible but tough. Everything wood elves have for the most part is very fragile and this goes beyond normal dark elves and high elves fragile. It may be the most fragile in the game esp. for what they cost. I beat a wood elf army on my 2nd battle with them and I totally did not expect that for a new book. Perhaps my build was meant to take them down more frequently than not?

-------

Starfire arrows? It sounds like I missed out on facing that type of arrow. I can imagine it'd be painful against any in buildings, trolls and the abomination.

Wow actually now that I see it there seems to be 4 types of arrows. I only remember ever facing about 3 different types. Sheesh that sounds super handy.

Just a question what do all the types do? I only faced the one that avoids most armor, the ones that don't have negative modifiers and the poisoned ones.

Sisters are one of a select few units that are tough to kill. You also wouldn't want to depend on a fireball to handle a unit of 25 eternal guard or a Flock of Doom against tree kin. Still magic missiles work brilliantly against most of the book.

The new WE army book does a pretty good job of having a variety of builds that all work well. Tree spirit armies can work well with the correct support, MSU shooty works well, even melee based lists can work well. The overall linking attribute is that WE are fragile for their pts. Even treekin are fragile for their pts as fire makes short work of them and they will often wear down to most other anvil units.

The arrows replace the bows stats (so keep that in mind when someone tries to claim armour piercing on arcane bodkins). They all have 30" range, S3, and volley fire. The varieties of arrows are;
-Arcane Bodkins: -3 armour save (only arrow without armour piercing, probably not seen a lot as costs nearly the same as waywatchers which are just better)
-Hagbane: posion and armour piercing (very common on deepwood scouts as they murder warmachines and monsters)
-Moonfire: Fire, +1 to wound vs. forces of order, and armour piercing (less useful as order has less regenerating monsters)
-Starfire: Fire, +1 to wound vs. forces of chaos, and armour piercing (more useful as chaos has lots of regenerating critters)
-Trueflight: No negative to hit modifiers and armour piercing (just awesome as it allows WE to be mobile, shoot through forests, shoot at long range, and kill skirmishers with impunity)
-Swiftshiver Shards: Multiple Shot (2) and armour piercing (sound great but fall flat due to the large negative to hit modifiers you are liable to take)

Waywatchers have an ability which while similar in many ways is different and in important ways. They also cannot take the above arrows (thank your chaos gods as with almost any of the above arrows two group of 10 would eliminate most armies by themselves)

if you have choice of lore. Lore of light is amazing. 2 magic missles, one that is flaming and can be boosted to S6 to smoke a treeman/tree kin, banishment is great for the chaff.

Target their wizards unit with net.
And pha's. timewarp can be good for catching them.

Some great ideas guys.

I tried out a different list the other day, using MSU idea with a unit of SM, 2 units of PG, a Lion chariot and a unit of dragon princes going down center, bolt throwers and archers supporting fire and a frost heart going down one flank. Good results, killed everything except the unit that teleported around. In hindsight probably should have shot/MM the teleporter unit more. (I used high magic with soul quench)

I find MSU a good idea! Going to try out more of it in the near future.

The last Wood Elf player I fought beat me. He went first which helped him a lot. However what he used was a very good list that is taking advantage of some early discovered wood elf weaknesses. He took a big unit of 'sisters of thorn' and threw his heroes in there essentially making them pretty much impervious to anything but test or die spells. He also took some 'sniper' model or character and death magic to snipe my magic missile wizards.

I definitely wasn't ready for that and it was effective. I guess i'll need to re-think my battle plan for next game.

So what's the game plan for WoC players? Casters out the demon hole and flying monster mash with hellstriders?

Use the Lore of Tzeentch. It works well against the woodies.

A bit of a given, but I indeed appreciate the response. What else would one suggest for a WoC list facing wood elves that won't be expensive pin cushions? Or much better yet, how best to use those expensive pin cushions? Our fast units (aside from cav) can't take a hit and don't like dangerous terrain, heavy cav has likely a 50/50 chance of being useful. See waywatchers. That leaves fast cav (marauder horsemen, yuck) tzeentch and slaanesh casters and flying monsters as far as I can tell.

BaalSNAFU wrote:
A bit of a given, but I indeed appreciate the response. What else would one suggest for a WoC list facing wood elves that won't be expensive pin cushions? Or much better yet, how best to use those expensive pin cushions? Our fast units (aside from cav) can't take a hit and don't like dangerous terrain, heavy cav has likely a 50/50 chance of being useful. See waywatchers. That leaves fast cav (marauder horsemen, yuck) tzeentch and slaanesh casters and flying monsters as far as I can tell.

Chariots.
Wood elves can kill T5 (poison shots) or good armor (waywatchers) but can't do both.
A few chariots with a daemon prince and super ward save flying BSB.

-Matt

Yup, Hortennse Lords are the way to go about it. High Armour and Toughness will give them pain.

 Wilytank wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:

 Pyeatt wrote:
... Drop pod in some salamandars and burn those Ent devils down.

The OP has later said that he plays High Elves. Only Lizardmen have Salamanders and even then I'm not sure what a drop pod is. Did you get that from the rough translation of a Slann's belch?

He's making a 40k joke.

No gak.

So...what's with your first comment, then? Was that also a joke?

 Pyeatt wrote:
... Drop pod in some salamandars and burn those Ent devils down.

THIS! Elves will be bowing down to you!!!

Wings of Purity wrote:
They are not magic items, there's nowhere on the book that says they are a magic item. Assuming something is a magic item because of it is taken for a few points and have special rules is like saying Tau is a combat oriented army because Kroots beat guardsmen...

The section they come in says that they're enchanted items...

All I know is that TO's in the Midwest and Mountain regions of the US have yet to reject a list with multiple units taking the same arrow type.

And frankly, the TO's opinions are generally the ones who matter unless you only play friendlies in which case, you should make it agreeable amongst your friends.


Edit: the drop pod joke got me chuckling as the visual is pretty funny.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Wings of Purity wrote:
They are not magic items, there's nowhere on the book that says they are a magic item. Assuming something is a magic item because of it is taken for a few points and have special rules is like saying Tau is a combat oriented army because Kroots beat guardsmen...

The section they come in says that they're enchanted items...

And round we go again. They aren't magic items though, cos magic items are items you give to characters, not units.
The rules are written just badly enough for it to be argued either way, but most people seem to be leaning towards allowing multiples, I think.
Except the ones that keep being beaten by wood elves maybe!

Az

 Aben Zin wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Wings of Purity wrote:
They are not magic items, there's nowhere on the book that says they are a magic item. Assuming something is a magic item because of it is taken for a few points and have special rules is like saying Tau is a combat oriented army because Kroots beat guardsmen...

The section they come in says that they're enchanted items...

And round we go again. They aren't magic items though, cos magic items are items you give to characters, not units.
The rules are written just badly enough for it to be argued either way, but most people seem to be leaning towards allowing multiples, I think.
Except the ones that keep being beaten by wood elves maybe!

Az

They are magic items that don't follow the normal rules set for magic items.

If we follow your rules, the star lance stops being a magic item the moment I give it to my dragon prince champion. And thus becomes immune to Arcane Unforging. And the same goes for the Banner of the World Dragon.

Well no, because the Champion bought it from the magic item allowance. It says "magic items" and everything. Nowhere does it describe wood elf arrows as magic items. It does say they're enchanted items, yes, because they are items that are enchanted, but they aren't taken out of a magic item allowance, nor can they be Arcanely unforged. Because they aren't magic items.

So, you're saying that GW used the term "enchanted items", but weren't referring to a previously defined mechanical term, "Enchanted Items"?

Maybe? The thing is, GW thought to include a qualifying paragraph in the Armoury section (note they are here, not the magic item section) which reads "They are enchanted items but do not prevent a model from having a second enchanted item".
In doing to they clarified that rules question (ie. "does the arrows stop a character having a second enchanted item?"), but in doing so have created this rules muddle.

There is no further mention of enchanted arrows as magic items, and they are listed separately from magic items in the character entries in the army list.

Nowhere in the book at all does it say they can be only taken for one unit. Nowhere in the book at all does it say they must be taken from the character's magic item allowance. Nowhere does it refer to the as Magi items, per say.

That they are called "enchanted items" at all seems to be entirely from a fluff, not a rules point of view.
But there is that rules qualification, muddying the point completely.

I can understand the argument but it does seem to go completely against the rules as intended and seems to me to go mostly against the rules as written.

In just wish they'd hurry up and FAQ the darned thing once and for all.

So, the book says "they are enchanted items but do not prevent a model from having a second enchanted item". So...no. You're not trying to say there was a difference between "Enchanted Items" the game term and items that are enchanted.

The book says right there that they are Enchanted Items.
What are Enchanted Items? They are a type of Magic Item.

What rules do magic items have? Well, here are two of them:

1. a model can only have one magic item of each type.
2. a magic item may not be taken more than once per army.

The Wood Elf book gives us reason to ignore the first one. But it does nothing to address the second one.

There is absolutely no grounds to stand on in terms of whether or not they're magic items.
Now, if you wanted to point out that, when a unit of 15 Glade Guard takes a type of enchanted arrow, you've already broken the second rule 14 times, then you've got a case.

 Aben Zin wrote:

I can understand the argument but it does seem to go completely against the rules as intended and seems to me to go mostly against the rules as written.

In just wish they'd hurry up and FAQ the darned thing once and for all.

It's not an argument. It's people trying to ruleslawyer things to prevent builds that would wreck their otherwise "balanced"(read: Netlist) list.

As you mentioned, nowhere does it specify that each type of arrow is restricted to a specific unit.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Aben Zin wrote:

I can understand the argument but it does seem to go completely against the rules as intended and seems to me to go mostly against the rules as written.

In just wish they'd hurry up and FAQ the darned thing once and for all.

It's not an argument. It's people trying to ruleslawyer things to prevent builds that would wreck their otherwise "balanced"(read: Netlist) list.

As you mentioned, nowhere does it specify that each type of arrow is restricted to a specific unit.

I agree. Furthermore, there's also the precedent that you go with the Army Book rules if it contradicts the Big Rule Book. Like HE great weapons...they don't strike last. More's the pity.

So I think you can have more than one type of arrow in an army...you're certainly paying for them, at 3 or 4 points a pop! T3 and 17pt models is pretty intense risk, so it's not like this is really pushing the WE over the top in terms of strike power. The "Forces of Order" and "Forces of Destruction" ones are also only effective if you know who you're fighting. In a TAC list, you're paying a huge premium with no guaranteed payoff at all.

Actually in the case of HE great weapons (and all elf great weapons) it's more a case of ASF and ASL cancelling each other out, which is in the main rulebook.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:
Against many targets, a high elf with a long bow is better than Glade Guard. It's not saying that High Elf Archers are good, but rather that Glade Guard are fairly expensive for what you get.

Take the bodkins vs Brettonians.
BS 4, save -3, sounds good right?
But, it's 17 points a model.
A unit of 14 (248 points), downs slightly less than 2 knights a turn average at range.
Then what happens if brettonians take some longbowmen as well? If they have the arrows to kill a few knights, they don't have the arrows to kill a horde of bowmen.

This is unfair, You are judging Glade Guard by their worst option. I can't think of a single reason to take Arcane Bodkins rather then fork out the extra 3 points to get yourself a Waywatcher apart from maybe you already have filled up on Waywatchers, Even then i would choose Trueflight, simply because it is by far and away the best of the arrows, only rivaled by Poison.

In exchange to your point, i would make:

Take Waywatchers vs Brettonians.
Bs 5, Ignores armour, sounds good right?
But it's only 20pts per model.
A unit of 12 (240pts), downs 4 Knights a turn on Average at range.
What happens if Brets take Longbowmen as well? They simply swap to shoot two arrows each instead of one, still ignoring their armour due to AP. Not cost effective though, if you are facing Bretts and their are no Knights left to shoot, it's likely you've already won.

In the same vain Waywatchers are bloody murder to the Dragon Knight bus High Elves like to take. I take two units of ten Waywatchers in most large games and lets just say if they shoot at something on a turn The Withering goes off, remove said unit. Even if they don't get the Withering off they are still stripping models at a fast rate. Waywatchers are a great unit, Bodkin Archers...less so.

Wood Elf shooting is much more specialised now, and as such can struggle against standard rank and file - primarily due to the relative high cost of the elves. Wood elves could shoot a block of 50 clan rats all game and still not take it out altogether.

Against monsters (especially with only minimal armour) and war machines Hagsbane really shines; Skirmishers or anything hiding behind walls or garrisoning buildings fall quickly to Trueflight. Swiftshiver is generally not hugely efficient but becomes insane when combined with Hand of Glory.
The firey arrows are a only really worth taking if you know exactly you're facing, but otherwise too expensive, as are the Bodkins.

In defense of Star Fire arrows, as an opposing view i have been taking a unit of 15 of them to good effect. I would argue they do have their place in an all comers list even if you don't know what your fighting.

Flaming is generally a useful thing to have in an army, fact. Most monsters with Regen are from Forces of Destruction (Trolls, Helpits), fact. So +1 to wound and Flaming arrows means you can usually strip regen off of something that wants it. I wouldn't take more then 1 unit of them, but 1 unit is more then enough for the job.

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's not an argument. It's people trying to ruleslawyer things to prevent builds that would wreck their otherwise "balanced"(read: Netlist) list.

As you mentioned, nowhere does it specify that each type of arrow is restricted to a specific unit.

Whoa! Hostile, much?
I personally couldn't care less if you took one of each enchanted arrow or took all Hagsbane Tips. Running all Hagsbane might give you an edge, but it's not going to "wreck" my list any significant amount more or less than taking one of each.

Not sure what that comment about balanced vs Net lists is all about in this thread.

And no, the Wood Elf book doesn't say they're restricted. But it doesn't let you ignore the BRB, either. Again: it says they're Enchanted Items.

 pantheralegionnaire wrote:
I agree. Furthermore, there's also the precedent that you go with the Army Book rules if it contradicts the Big Rule Book.

Except there's no contradiction, here. Warhammer is permissive. No where in the Wood Elf book does it give you permission to break the rules in the BRB in this regard.

 pantheralegionnaire wrote:
So I think you can have more than one type of arrow in an army...you're certainly paying for them, at 3 or 4 points a pop! T3 and 17pt models is pretty intense risk, so it's not like this is really pushing the WE over the top in terms of strike power. The "Forces of Order" and "Forces of Destruction" ones are also only effective if you know who you're fighting. In a TAC list, you're paying a huge premium with no guaranteed payoff at all.

Except, if you can multiples, you run Hagsbane with a sprinkle of Trueflight.
But aside from that, I'm not arguing that you're stuck with 1 unit each of an enchanted arrow because it's too good otherwise. I'm not even arguing that you can't field multiple units with the same arrows at all.
What I am saying is, the BRB says you can only have one of each instance of magic item. And enchanted arrows are Enchanted Items.
...but since every model in the unit has that Enchanted Item, there's already an issue right there.
It's not set in stone. This is a pretty grey one.

Hey, @Warpsolution, this:

"But aside from that, I'm not arguing that you're stuck with 1 unit each of an enchanted arrow because it's too good otherwise. I'm not even arguing that you can't field multiple units with the same arrows at all.
What I am saying is, the BRB says you can only have one of each instance of magic item. And enchanted arrows are Enchanted Items.
...but since every model in the unit has that Enchanted Item, there's already an issue right there."

is really interesting. I don't know if I misread earlier, (or just missed it), but the possibility that you would have only one unit each of the various arrows had not occurred to me. That does make sense, as you say. I thought the question at the start was: If you pick one type of enchanted arrow, do ALL your units of shooters have to run the same one? Which seems worse to me than having no more than one of each.

Either way, the grey area you describe certainly exists. You'd think that with all the play-testers and people employed in Nottingham they could write rules that are crystal clear in this regard. Any idea when a FAQ for Wood Elves is coming out? I can't even find the link on the GW page now.

But are Enchanted items Magic items? Just because there are Enchanted items that are magic items it doesn't necessarily follow that all enchanted items are therefore magic items. "Magic Items" in every other instance of the term (and correct me if there are army specific exceptions) refers to items purchased from the magic item list, with it's own points allocation and almost exclusively by characters, not rank and file models. Enchanted items are a subsection of that list, but that subsection refers only to the enchanted items that are actually magic items.
Bare in mind that in the Wood Elf book the enchanted arrows are listed under the armoury section- not the magic item section.

It's like saying bananas are yellow and bananas are fruit so therefore all fruits are yellow.
[edit]I think. This simile is giving me a headache. Let's see; the "bananas" are "enchanted items on the magic item list", the "magic item list" is "yellow" and "all fruits" refer to "enchanted arrows". Yeah. Solid.[/edit]

 Aben Zin wrote:
But are Enchanted items Magic items? Just because there are Enchanted items that are magic items it doesn't necessarily follow that all enchanted items are therefore magic items. "Magic Items" in every other instance of the term (and correct me if there are army specific exceptions) refers to items purchased from the magic item list, with it's own points allocation and almost exclusively by characters, not rank and file models. Enchanted items are a subsection of that list, but that subsection refers only to the enchanted items that are actually magic items.
Bare in mind that in the Wood Elf book the enchanted arrows are listed under the armoury section- not the magic item section.

...yes. Yes it does. The Wood Elf book says enchanted arrows are Enchanted Items. So, how do we know what Enchanted Items are? We look in the BRB.
Lots of unit champions can take magic items. And units take magic standards.
Correct you if there are army-specific restrictions? Okay. Wood Elves.

 Aben Zin wrote:
It's like saying bananas are yellow and bananas are fruit so therefore all fruits are yellow.

What is that, the Fallacy of Consequence? Either way, that's not what this is. I'm saying: enchanted arrows are Enchanted Items. Enchanted Items follow certain rules. Therefore, enchanted arrows follow certain rules.

 pantheralegionnaire wrote:
I don't know if I misread earlier, (or just missed it), but the possibility that you would have only one unit each of the various arrows had not occurred to me. That does make sense, as you say. I thought the question at the start was: If you pick one type of enchanted arrow, do ALL your units of shooters have to run the same one? Which seems worse to me than having no more than one of each.

I...don't know why you'd be stuck with one type of enchanted arrow. There aren't any rules to enforce or support that theory.

...but, if you were shoe-horned into one type of arrow, take Hagsbane tips. There's a thread on here from a while back that shows the numbers, and Hagsbane is easily the best.

I do wonder, though. Does anyone field regular ol' Glade Guard now?

What your saying is that because enchanted arrows are enchanted items they are therefore MAGIC ITEMS. Please quote exactly the point in the BRB that indicates that all Enchanted items are Magic items. In return, here is the summary of the Armoury of Torgovann (in which enchanted arrows are listed):
"In this section you will find descriptions and rules for a number of weapons and upgrades available to the units and characters of the Wood Elf army."

Please note the lack of mention of magic items.

And here is the description of the Heirlooms of Athel Loren:
"On the following pages are magic items available to Wood Elf armies. These can be taken in addition to any of the Magic Items in the Warhammer rule book."

Please note the use of the words Magic Items.
So the while the wood elf book does call enchanted arrows enchanted items, it lists them under unit upgrades, far, far away from the later list of magic items. So how are they magic items?

With regard to fielding regular glade guard, I was wondering that myself. I suspect the best reason for doing so would be to take the flaming banner- it costs less than upgrading 3 GG to firey arrows so would make a certain amount of sense if you didn't know what you were facing.

 Aben Zin wrote:
What your saying is that because enchanted arrows are enchanted items they are therefore MAGIC ITEMS. Please quote exactly the point in the BRB that indicates that all Enchanted items are Magic items.

...in the Magic Item section. I don't have a book on me, but I'm pretty sure that the BRB classifies Magic Weapons, Magic Armour, Talismans, Magic Standards, Arcane Items, and Enchanted Items as magic items.

So the Wood Elf book puts them under a different listing. That doesn't clarify anything.

I can't believe this is actually an argument. If Enchanted Items are not magic items...what are they? What sort of rules do they follow?
Would you argue that not all Magic Weapons, Magic Armour, or Magic Standards are Magic Items?

Again. If you want to argue that you can take one type of enchanted arrow multiple times, that's a perfectly reasonable stance to take. But don't try to prove it with this nonsense. Instead, you can argue that, if you're only allowed one instance on enchanted arrows, then taking it on 15 Glade Guard breaks that rule 14 times. Now there's evidence that actually stands up to scrutiny.

It's not clear, one way or the other. You could even try to argue that, since you're not allowed duplicates of Enchanted Items, you can't take enchanted arrows on units of more than one model. Which is stupid. But anyway, it's a grey area. Nuff said.

Considering that the arrow options:

- are not presented in the magic items section, as opposed to, for example, the Hail of Doom Arrow;
- are meant to be taken in multiples, as all models from a unit are equipped with one instance of the same arrow type;
- are similar in rules to warpstone weapons and daemonic troop weapons - all of them being magic weapons as well;
- are described as being "enchanted items", as opposed to "Enchanted Items", implying that the expression used is not rules terminology, just as " movement" is not equal to "Movement";
- in bigger games you'd run out of options faster than you'd run out of units to be equipped;

The intent seems crystal clear to me; to be honest I find preposterous that there is people that still argue for allowing only one unit to be equipped with each type of arrow.
Luckily for me I am not really interested in playing at an event that will enforce this peculiar interpretation. As such I can simply shrug and avoid to play against anyone who would like to push forward this limitation.

Warpsolution wrote:
...in the Magic Item section. I don't have a book on me, but I'm pretty sure that the BRB classifies Magic Weapons, Magic Armour, Talismans, Magic Standards, Arcane Items, and Enchanted Items as magic items.

It's the other way round- the BRB classifies magic items as magic weapons, magic armour etc.
The magic arrows follow the rules for unit upgrades, because that's what they are. Why would something that's so common to wood elves that they're given to the most basic infantry that they field be in the same section as a weapon that "a fortunate hoarder of rare trinkets would consider himself lucky to see one example of a 'common' magic item in his lifetime".

So what that they're described as enchanted items? How else would you describe items that are enchanted by magic?

 Aben Zin wrote:
It's the other way round- the BRB classifies magic items as magic weapons, magic armour etc.

Oh! So...it says Magic Weapons are Magic Items? And Magic Armour? And...Enchanted Items? Enchanted Items are Magic Items, you say? Good to know.

 Aben Zin wrote:
Why would something that's so common to wood elves that they're given to the most basic infantry that they field be in the same section as a weapon that "a fortunate hoarder of rare trinkets would consider himself lucky to see one example of a 'common' magic item in his lifetime".

This is all irrelevant to The Rulez.
Again. I'm not saying that you're limited to one instance of each enchanted arrow per army. I do not believe that is what the designers were going for. If my opponent wants to run all Hagsbane, fine. I'm totally cool with that.
But the rules are not clear on it. That's all.

 Aben Zin wrote:
So what that they're described as enchanted items? How else would you describe items that are enchanted by magic?

...are you serious? How else would I describe ITEMS that are enchanted by MAGIC? Well, gee golly wiz, that sure is a tricky one! How about...oh, I don't know...MAGIC ITEMS?

All they need to do is not call them Magic Items (they're magical. Obviously. But so are Ensorcelled Weapons and the bows used by the Sisters and all sorts of other stuff. Just take the Capital Letters, and we're gravy). Or say that the one per army rule doesn't apply to them. Whatever.

@Aben Zin: If they wanted them to have their given effects and not be affected by the rules for Enchanted Items, all they have had to do is not call them Enchanted Items. They could have just been made into a Special Rule upgrade.

Warpsolution wrote:

 Aben Zin wrote:
It's the other way round- the BRB classifies magic items as magic weapons, magic armour etc.

Oh! So...it says Magic Weapons are Magic Items? And Magic Armour? And...Enchanted Items? Enchanted Items are Magic Items, you say? Good to know.

 Aben Zin wrote:
Why would something that's so common to wood elves that they're given to the most basic infantry that they field be in the same section as a weapon that "a fortunate hoarder of rare trinkets would consider himself lucky to see one example of a 'common' magic item in his lifetime".

This is all irrelevant to The Rulez.
Again. I'm not saying that you're limited to one instance of each enchanted arrow per army. I do not believe that is what the designers were going for. If my opponent wants to run all Hagsbane, fine. I'm totally cool with that.
But the rules are not clear on it. That's all.

 Aben Zin wrote:
So what that they're described as enchanted items? How else would you describe items that are enchanted by magic?

...are you serious? How else would I describe ITEMS that are enchanted by MAGIC? Well, gee golly wiz, that sure is a tricky one! How about...oh, I don't know...MAGIC ITEMS?

All they need to do is not call them Magic Items (they're magical. Obviously. But so are Ensorcelled Weapons and the bows used by the Sisters and all sorts of other stuff. Just take the Capital Letters, and we're gravy). Or say that the one per army rule doesn't apply to them. Whatever.

Going off memory here.
The BRB defines magic items as coming from one of several categories (which are then listed)
Enchanted arrows say they are enchanted items that do not prevent you taking another enchanted item.
The only way enchanted arrows would prevent taking another enchanted item is if they were enchanted items.
Enchanted arrows do not prevent you taking other enchanted items
Therefore they are not enchanted items.
They are magic items that do not come from one of the categories of magic items.
They do not fit the definition of magic items, thus are not magic items.

That's how I read it, based purely off memory (can't find my books lol).

Additionally from memory, the WE bsb entry states that if you take a magic banner, you cannot take further magic items or enchanted arrows, if they were indeed magic items, this distinction should not be necessary.

Have I missed anything?

 Krellnus wrote:

Additionally from memory, the WE bsb entry states that if you take a magic banner, you cannot take further magic items or enchanted arrows, if they were indeed magic items, this distinction should not be necessary.

Have I missed anything?

That is actually true.And very clear. I had not noticed that.

Actually, that's pretty much defining.
Good job.

Az

 Krellnus wrote:
Enchanted arrows say they are enchanted items that do not prevent you taking another enchanted item.
The only way enchanted arrows would prevent taking another enchanted item is if they were enchanted items.
Enchanted arrows do not prevent you taking other enchanted items
Therefore they are not enchanted items.

That's not necessarily a logical extrapolation.

An equally valid interpretation is that they are Enchanted Items that have a special rule bypassing the normal restrictions. (This interpretation being exactly what their own description says they are.)

A better interpretation is that if they weren't Enchanted Items, they wouldn't have been called Enchanted Items.

That's totally irreverent. The BSB entry clearly states you can't have magic items OR enchanted arrows. Thus the arguement ends- Enchanted arrows are not magic items, whether they're Enchanted Items or not.

 Krellnus wrote:
Enchanted arrows say they are enchanted items that do not prevent you taking another enchanted item.
The only way enchanted arrows would prevent taking another enchanted item is if they were enchanted items...Therefore they are not enchanted items.

WHAT?!

That is absolutely absurd.

 Krellnus wrote:
the WE bsb entry states that if you take a magic banner, you cannot take further magic items or enchanted arrows, if they were indeed magic items, this distinction should not be necessary.

This has some weight to it. But, oh wait! If this is true, then why would they need to say you can take another Enchanted Item...unless they, too, were Enchanted Items? You can't use this sort of thinking here, but ignore it in the previous section. You've got to pick one. Or, you could accept the Truth of the matter, as I have: the book is not clear on how this is supposed to work.

The second comment is interesting, but it doesn't offer anything more than circumstantial proof. The statement "if the BSB takes a magic banner, they cannot take further magic items, magic weapons, or magic armour" is a true statement. It's just also redundant.
Again: I certainly believe that you can take multiples of the same type of arrow. Because it's pretty clear that's what they meant to allow (as the BSB entry you mentioned shows). But the RAW are not clear on that.

Seriously. They're enchanted items that let you take other enchanted items, therefore they're not what we just effing said they are? That's your case-and-point?

 Aben Zin wrote:
That's totally irreverent. The BSB entry clearly states you can't have magic items OR enchanted arrows. Thus the arguement ends- Enchanted arrows are not magic items, whether they're Enchanted Items or not.

It also clearly states that enchanted arrows are Enchanted Items. And, hey, would you be so kind as to define "Enchanted Items"? I believe you will find them in the section detailing the various sorts of Magic Items...
Also, I believe you were looking for "irrelevant". Not trying to criticize your grammar; just thought I'd let you know.

The argument, by the way, ends when one side relents. And, honestly, I can't see a single leg to stand on the other side of this debate.

They are Enchanted Items. That is plain as day, and only the most blindingly false of claims can offer an alternative. The book says they are. Therefore--gasp!--they are.
The actual question is: what exceptions to the normal Magic Item rules are made in this case? We know of one for sure: a character can take an enchanted arrow and still take another Enchanted Item. But what about duplicates of that same enchanted arrow? On that, the book contradicts itself.

Christ it's like the more supporting evidence, even DIRECT STATEMENTS, we find. the more you come back to the same, stupid quibble over semantics.
Enchanted items are not the same thing as magic items! Yes there are magic items that are enchanted items, but there are also enchanted items that are NOT magic items! Which is why it says magic items OR enchanted arrows!

What makes an item a Magic Item is where you choose it from- ie. the magic item list. Enchanted arrows ARE NOT ON THAT LIST, they are on the list for upgrades.
The book IN NO WAY says they are magic items. The BSB entry CLEARLY STATES that they are separate (magic items OR enchanted arrows).

I really don't see how you are not getting this. Excuse my somewhat irrelevant tone here.

Az

 Aben Zin wrote:
Enchanted items are not the same thing as magic items! Yes there are magic items that are enchanted items, but there are also enchanted items that are NOT magic items!

Provide evidence please.

 Aben Zin wrote:
What makes an item a Magic Item is where you choose it from- ie. the magic item list. Enchanted arrows ARE NOT ON THAT LIST...The book IN NO WAY says they are magic items.

A'hem...:

from page 500 of "WARHAMMER: The Game of Fantasy Battles"--

"Magic items are divided into six categories: Magic Weapons, Magic Armour, Talismans, Enchanted Items, Arcane Items, and Magic Standards"

So. Enchanted Items are a category of magic item. Not all magic items are Enchanted Items, but all Enchanted Items are magic items.

The entry in the Wood Elf book about the BSB further adds to the grey area, but it does nothing to prove it, one way or the other. It certainly wouldn't be the first time a Games Workshop book had confusing/redundant/non-nonsensical statement.
"Magic items or enchanted arrows" leads us to believe as you said. That said arrows are not magic items. But the enchanted arrow entry states they are Enchanted Items, which, by definition, must also be magic items.
Since the first statement is suggestive and the second is definitive, the second statement is stronger.
...but then we move on to the other issues with the original question.

Provide evidence please.

How about dragon armour? It is undoubtedly magical armour but doesn't count as a magic item. The bows of the maiden guard? Definitely magical weapons, not magic items.
My lack of familiarity of other books hinders my abilities to find other examples.

Besides, the rulebook in no way state that all enchanted items are magic items- there is a type of magic item that are enchanted items, but it in no ways states that all enchanted items are magic items.

In fact there is only one sure way of knowing if something is a magic item: that it is listed in the magic item list, either the one in the main book or the individual ones in the army books. That is the only sure way we can define a magic item.

As all, literally all, the other evidence points to enchanted arrows not being magic items I really struggle to see how your still trying to make this argument.

 Aben Zin wrote:

Provide evidence please.

How about dragon armour? It is undoubtedly magical armour but doesn't count as a magic item. The bows of the maiden guard? Definitely magical weapons, not magic items.
My lack of familiarity of other books hinders my abilities to find other examples.

Besides, the rulebook in no way state that all enchanted items are magic items- there is a type of magic item that are enchanted items, but it in no ways states that all enchanted items are magic items.

In fact there is only one sure way of knowing if something is a magic item: that it is listed in the magic item list, either the one in the main book or the individual ones in the army books. That is the only sure way we can define a magic item.

As all, literally all, the other evidence points to enchanted arrows not being magic items I really struggle to see how your still trying to make this argument.

Dragon armour is mundane armour that has a 6+ ward save. It's not magical. It's a character upgrade. It's mundane armour that [rovides a 5+/6++. It does not say anywhere that they're magical.

As for the bows. They themselves are mundane. But they fire magical arrows. Just like Tomb King bows. The bows aren't magical, the arrows are. The key phase here is under Arrows of Isha. "Any shooting attack made by these bows...."


As for the enchanted item thing, are you dense, or just being purposefully silly? It says it in clear wording on page 505, under Enchanted Items. "They are often the most prized magical items to possess."

And the Wood Elf book clearly states they're enchanted items, which, as I stated, the BRB states are a type of magic item. Thus, Arrows are magical items.

 Aben Zin wrote:

How about dragon armour? It is undoubtedly magical armour but doesn't count as a magic item. The bows of the maiden guard? Definitely magical weapons, not magic items.
My lack of familiarity of other books hinders my abilities to find other examples.

Does Dragon Armour ever explicitly say it is "Magic Armour" or a magic item? Because, if not, it isn't either of those things, according to the definition of the game term (like you said; it's undoubtedly armour with magical properties. But, for some reason, GW has decided to define that differently from Magic Armour).
If my memory serves, the Maiden's bows are clearly established as equipment that has the Magical Attacks special rule, but otherwise follows no other rules for magic items.

 Aben Zin wrote:
Besides, the rulebook in no way state that all enchanted items are magic items- there is a type of magic item that are enchanted items, but it in no ways states that all enchanted items are magic items.

Enchanted Items are listed as a category of magic items. That is the only place they appear, and the only time they are described or defined.
Show me where Enchanted Items are described as anything other than magic items. The Wood Elf book, by the way, sort of implies it here and there, but it doesn't actually say anything definitive.

That's like saying that not all rapiers and sabers are swords, only that there are types of swords called rapiers and sabers. It is a false statement.

 Aben Zin wrote:
In fact there is only one sure way of knowing if something is a magic item: that it is listed in the magic item list, either the one in the main book or the individual ones in the army books. That is the only sure way we can define a magic item.

Or, you know, if it tells you that it's a magic item. Which the Wood Elf book does, when it tells us that they're Enchanted Items.
Now, I will say, the fact that they're listed in the Armoury instead of the magic item section is contradictory. But again. That's circumstantial. It offers no clear evidence.

 Aben Zin wrote:
As all, literally all, the other evidence points to enchanted arrows not being magic items I really struggle to see how your still trying to make this argument.

By "all" evidence, do you mean the two points of (a) they're not listed under magic items and (b) the comment under the BSB section?
How am I still making this argument. I'll tell you: because the Wood Elf book says they're Enchanted Items. So I looked up Enchanted Items. Which are a type of magic item.

Once again, though. I'm not arguing that you can't take multiples of one kind of arrow. I'm just saying there's a bunch of grey area here. And I do believe they intended to let you take multiples.

Warpsolution wrote:

 Aben Zin wrote:

How about dragon armour? It is undoubtedly magical armour but doesn't count as a magic item. The bows of the maiden guard? Definitely magical weapons, not magic items.
My lack of familiarity of other books hinders my abilities to find other examples.

Does Dragon Armour ever explicitly say it is "Magic Armour" or a magic item? Because, if not, it isn't either of those things, according to the definition of the game term (like you said; it's undoubtedly armour with magical properties. But, for some reason, GW has decided to define that differently from Magic Armour).
If my memory serves, the Maiden's bows are clearly established as equipment that has the Magical Attacks special rule, but otherwise follows no other rules for magic items.

They're established as a mundane weapon that have the Arrows of Isha rule. That rule gives them the magic attacks.

Ok, to summarise the points of both arguments:
Are enchanted arrows magic items?

For:

- They are listed as enchanted items.

Against

- They are placed in the Armoury section of the wood elf book, not the magic item section.

- The BSB magic banner upgrades states "magic item OR enchanted arrows"

- They are listed separately from the magic items in the character upgrades in the army list

- They are bought for entire regiments, something that magic items are traditionally not bought for

- When bought for regiments they are given to multiple models, which would violate the "unique" magic item rule


I've raised over the course of this, now completely derailed, topic counters to that first argument without having any of the arguments against countered at all, and any further discussion would be merely repetition.
Could we perhaps settle this with a poll on the rules discussion portion? See what the majority think?

 Aben Zin wrote:
Ok, to summarise the points of both arguments:
Are enchanted arrows magic items?

For:

- They are listed as enchanted items.

Against

- They are placed in the Armoury section of the wood elf book, not the magic item section.

- The BSB magic banner upgrades states "magic item OR enchanted arrows"

- They are listed separately from the magic items in the character upgrades in the army list

- They are bought for entire regiments, something that magic items are traditionally not bought for

- When bought for regiments they are given to multiple models, which would violate the "unique" magic item rule


I've raised over the course of this, now completely derailed, topic counters to that first argument without having any of the arguments against countered at all, and any further discussion would be merely repetition.
Could we perhaps settle this with a poll on the rules discussion portion? See what the majority think?

The argument for them being magic items trumps EVERY argument against, as they're listed as enchanted items, which are definitively magic items. And NOTHING in the book contradicts or supercedes that.


The BSB thing doesn't prove anything. As it's done because, and this is a major reason, EACH ARROW HAS A SEPARATE POINTS VALUE.

And the armoury thing has a portion of validity, except that it's done because they're upgrades, not unique entities.

And the fact that you buy them for regiments means absolutely nothing. There is one other example of this. Ensorcelled weapons.

And the reason they can be duplicated on units comes from the line; "but do not prevent the bearer from having a second enchanted item."


The bottom line is this, your arguments have little to no validity. They are magic items, this is concrete. Whether they are or not, holds nothing in relation to the duplication argument, because, as enchanted items, they are magic.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

The argument for them being magic items trumps EVERY argument against, as they're listed as enchanted items, which are definitively magic items. And NOTHING in the book contradicts or supercedes that.

Says you.

The BSB thing doesn't prove anything. As it's done because, and this is a major reason, EACH ARROW HAS A SEPARATE POINTS VALUE.

That isn't a major reason.
It doesn't even make sense. They are listed separately because they are not magic items.

And the armoury thing has a portion of validity, except that it's done because they're upgrades, not unique entities.

Not unique entities? You mean like magic items are? You've just been arguing that they are magic items and are therefore unique and now you're saying they're not unique?

And the fact that you buy them for regiments means absolutely nothing. There is one other example of this. Ensorcelled weapons.

Bless you. The perfect example of a magic weapon that isn't a magic item.
Was looking for one of them.

And the reason they can be duplicated on units comes from the line; "but do not prevent the bearer from having a second enchanted item."

So your saying your reading "but do not prevent the bearer from having a second enchanted item." as "cannot be taken by more than one regiment or character"? Because those are completely separate sentences, that are nothing alike in structure or meaning.

The bottom line is this, your arguments have little to no validity. They are magic items, this is concrete.

Nope!

Magic Items refers to the items purchased from the magic item lists, not every item of a vaguely magical nature. Enchanted arrows are not on the magic item list. ergo they are not magic items and don't follow the rules for them.

Whether they are or not, holds nothing in relation to the duplication argument, because, as enchanted items, they are magic.

So you're saying if they aren't magic items the duplication rule (which applies only to magic items) would still apply because they are magic?

A) You are the only person who left who is arguing that they're not magic items. They are. The BRB says so. End of discussion.

B) It is a major reason. To save space. If they entered them in the magic items section, then it'd just add to it, and take space away elsewhere. By doing it this way, with minimal entries, and due to them being magic upgrades, they can save on space.

C) Magic items are unique entities. However, they're also a category. Under which you have magic weapons, armour, talismans, arcane items, and finally, the category which these come under; Enchanted items. However, where the arrows differ, is that they're both magic items, and a unit upgrade. This means that they're both magic items, AND a separate entity.

D) As for the Ensorcelled weapon point, I retract that. Upon looking at the book, they aren't actually magic weapons at all. They're mundane, with the special rule of magic attacks.

E) It's a construed meaning. Yes they're upgrades. And yes, an entire unit can take them. Simply because they state that they don't follow the rules for standard magic items for the bearer. Some people will argue against that, and some for it. But the bottom line is that they are a subtype of magic item. The army book states this in clear wording. "These are enchanted items".

F) As I previously stated, it is set in stone that they're enchanted items. Which are magic items.

G) Read what I said. I said, this entire debate holds no relation to the topic of whether they can be duplicated.

Enchanted Items are a type of magic item. That's a fact. Like how Impact Hits are a type of close combat attack. Nothing can be the first, but not the latter.

Enchanted arrows states they are Enchanted Items. So that's what they are. They do, however, have rules that make them different from other Enchanted Items. This does not make them not Enchanted Items, any more than the special rules regarding Impact Hits makes them suddenly not close combat attacks.

The fact that the arrows are listed in the armoury and the stuff in the BSB entry is confusing, redundant, and/or contradictory.

There are two rules regarding all magic items quoted below, from p.500 of the BSB:

"UNIQUE
Magic items are considered to be unique--you can only have one of each in your army unless otherwise stated in the magic item's rules."

--this rule is not addressed in the Wood Elf book, so it would seem that you can only have one of each enchanted arrow. But since you can give a whole unit enchanted arrows, they obviously work differently than normal magic items, so there's still plenty of ambiguity here. I favor the idea that enchanted arrows are not subject to this rule.

"BALANCE OF POWER
Usually, only characters can carry magic items. Each model can only carry one of each type of magic item."

--this is the rule that enchanted arrows are explicitly allowed to ignore. They don't count towards a character's Enchanted Item slot.
Enchanted arrows don't follow this rule, but that does not suddenly make them stop being magic items.
If you still feel the BSB section offers any validity at all, because "if they say OR, that must mean they're different", then this point clearly conflicts with it for the exact same reasoning; if they're not magic items, why does it say they get to ignore one of the rules that only applies to magic items?

I believe the most sensible thing to do would be to either retract the statement that they are Enchanted Items, or add in a clause that states they are immune to the Balance of Power rule.
...though I do think it's sad that Bodkins, (Star/Moon)fire, and Swiftshiver are all so sadly sub-par compared to Trueflight and Hagsbane.

Ok. To thedarkavenger

A) There are 3 people still continuing this argument. You, me and warpsolution. An overwhelming majority in your favour perhaps, but as it's only us three playing the numbers game here is rather moot.

B) Then why not save further space by just saying magic items? If it was so clear that that's what enchanted arrows were then the distinction would not be necessary.

C) Magic items, at least by normal definitions, are the things bought from the magic item lists, either from the rulebook or the individual army books. They are bought, as the rulebook says, mostly for characters- standard bearers being the obvious exception.
Again the stupid banana metaphor applies here, but how about another one:
Say gum comes in 3 flavours; Peppermint, Spearmint and Pomegranate. Now toothpaste can come in spearmint flavour, but does that make it gum? No.


D) And why do they get those rules? Is it because they are magically enchanted? That sure makes them sound like magic weapons.

E) Which is still your only argument.

F) Ditto

G) Then what are we arguing about? I thought the whole point of this argument was that as magic items the magic arrows couldn't be duplicated on different regiments/characters. Are you accepting they can now?
If so, exactly what rule of magic items do magic arrows follow?

I think maybe the problem here resolves around whether you use "magic item" in a literal interpretation, ie. any item that is magical and "magic item" from a rules perspective.
Now the first of these certainly does include the listed magic items, but would also include Ensorcelled weapons (after all they gain their power from a magical source), Dragon Armour (ditto) and such things as Elvish Waystones- All of which are undoubtedly magical and certainly items but wouldn't follow the rules for magic items in the game itself.

Anyway, to Warpsolution's question:
Why does it say they get to ignore that rule? The only way to know for certain would be to ask the books author(s), but it seems to me that it was included because as enchanted arrows are described as enchanted people would say "Ah! That character has enchanted arrows! That means he can't have any other enchanted items!".
So in clarifying one potential rules query they created another one.
The BSB point is that it grammatically puts enchanted arrows as separate from magic items. OR means specifically one or the other. If they wanted to classify enchanted arrows as being magic items while at the same clarifying that BSBs with magic banners couldn't take them they would have said
"may not take magic items, including enchanted arrows". Saying "or" in this way explicitly prevents them from being magic items.

Of course, that's purely from a grammatical point of view, but combined with enchanted arrows be placed in the armoury, not the magic items section just further backs this up.

To go further, purely from a logical point of view: Armybook rules top rulebook rules, right? The armybook rules say that the enchanted arrows are upgrades, not magic items. It does say that they are enchanted items but by putting them in the armoury section it removes them from the category of magic items, therefore they are upgrades and not magic items.

Edit:
Yeah, I agree about the other arrow types. I'm not sure they're sub-par, in terms of actual usage at least. If you know what you're facing they definitely have potential. The main issue I think is with the cost- I've felt no desire to experiment with them because they take the cost per model to damn high!
I'm still tempted to try the swiftshiver/hand of glory combo, but I think that might just be a one trick pony.

 Aben Zin wrote:
Ok. To thedarkavenger

A) There are 3 people still continuing this argument. You, me and warpsolution. An overwhelming majority in your favour perhaps, but as it's only us three playing the numbers game here is rather moot.

B) Then why not save further space by just saying magic items? If it was so clear that that's what enchanted arrows were then the distinction would not be necessary.

C) Magic items, at least by normal definitions, are the things bought from the magic item lists, either from the rulebook or the individual army books. They are bought, as the rulebook says, mostly for characters- standard bearers being the obvious exception.
Again the stupid banana metaphor applies here, but how about another one:
Say gum comes in 3 flavours; Peppermint, Spearmint and Pomegranate. Now toothpaste can come in spearmint flavour, but does that make it gum? No.


D) And why do they get those rules? Is it because they are magically enchanted? That sure makes them sound like magic weapons.

E) Which is still your only argument.

F) Ditto

G) Then what are we arguing about? I thought the whole point of this argument was that as magic items the magic arrows couldn't be duplicated on different regiments/characters. Are you accepting they can now?
If so, exactly what rule of magic items do magic arrows follow?

I think maybe the problem here resolves around whether you use "magic item" in a literal interpretation, ie. any item that is magical and "magic item" from a rules perspective.
Now the first of these certainly does include the listed magic items, but would also include Ensorcelled weapons (after all they gain their power from a magical source), Dragon Armour (ditto) and such things as Elvish Waystones- All of which are undoubtedly magical and certainly items but wouldn't follow the rules for magic items in the game itself.

Anyway, to Warpsolution's question:
Why does it say they get to ignore that rule? The only way to know for certain would be to ask the books author(s), but it seems to me that it was included because as enchanted arrows are described as enchanted people would say "Ah! That character has enchanted arrows! That means he can't have any other enchanted items!".
So in clarifying one potential rules query they created another one.
The BSB point is that it grammatically puts enchanted arrows as separate from magic items. OR means specifically one or the other. If they wanted to classify enchanted arrows as being magic items while at the same clarifying that BSBs with magic banners couldn't take them they would have said
"may not take magic items, including enchanted arrows". Saying "or" in this way explicitly prevents them from being magic items.

Of course, that's purely from a grammatical point of view, but combined with enchanted arrows be placed in the armoury, not the magic items section just further backs this up.

To go further, purely from a logical point of view: Armybook rules top rulebook rules, right? The armybook rules say that the enchanted arrows are upgrades, not magic items. It does say that they are enchanted items but by putting them in the armoury section it removes them from the category of magic items, therefore they are upgrades and not magic items.

Edit:
Yeah, I agree about the other arrow types. I'm not sure they're sub-par, in terms of actual usage at least. If you know what you're facing they definitely have potential. The main issue I think is with the cost- I've felt no desire to experiment with them because they take the cost per model to damn high!
I'm still tempted to try the swiftshiver/hand of glory combo, but I think that might just be a one trick pony.

Are you purposefully being dense?

The book lists them as a type of magic item. Therefore they're magic items. Unless you can find a specific line in the wood elf book that says, "These are not enchanted items" then they're counted as enchanted items. Discussion over. End. Finito. Finis. There is no more debating this. You are in no way right. The book states "These are enchanted items". That is a direct quote.

As for the gum quote. What are you talking about? That has no relevance, or pertinence to the discussion at hand. The arrows are magic items because the book labels them as such. "Enchanted items" being the key phrase.


As for my argument, it's based on A) The BRB, and B) The wood elf book. Which both back me up. If you can provide direct quotes to back yours, I'd be glad to explain how they're wrong.

And once more. Dragon Armour and Ensorcelled weapons aren't magical. They're mundane weapons and armour. The former gains it's magical attacks from a special rule. That doesn't make them a magic weapon. Just like the Sisters of Averlon's bows. As for Dragon armour, it's mundane armour with ward saves. The rulebook has one meaning for magic items. And that meaning comes under the Magic item section. Any magic item in the game is either a magic weapon, magic armour, arcane item, talisman, magic standard, or enchanted item.

Are you seeing a pattern here?

I'm not saying that the magical items can't be duplicated, as that's a RAW vs RAI debate. Not part of the debate of whether or not they're magical items. Which they are.

Your entire argument hinges on some misbegotten idea that they're not magical items because they're not listed under the magical items section. Which is just not true.

I don't have the Wood Elf book so I am at a disadvantage but let me try to get this straight.

1. These arrows are claimed to be Magic items because at some point in the book it refers to them as Enchanted items?

2. Someone stated there is a rule in the WE book that says the arrows do not prevent someone from taking Enchanted items...is this correct?

3. So what is the purpose of this discussion? What conclusion are we attempting to reach?

 Throt wrote:

1. These arrows are claimed to be Magic items because at some point in the book it refers to them as Enchanted items?

2. Someone stated there is a rule in the WE book that says the arrows do not prevent someone from taking Enchanted items...is this correct?

3. So what is the purpose of this discussion? What conclusion are we attempting to reach?

1. Yes. The book says they are Enchanted Items.
2. The enchanted arrow entry say something akin to "these are enchanted items that do not prevent a character from taking another enchanted item".
3. The original discussion was whether or not you can take multiple instances of the same type of enchanted arrow. Because (a) they are Enchanted Items, (b) there is nothing in the book that exempts them from the Balance of Power rule, and (c) they can be purchased for whole units as a pts/model upgrade.

So it's all a bit of a mess, really. But we've gotten hung up on whether or not all Enchanted Items are, indeed, Magic Items.

I see.

It would appear that if there are no restrictions in the unit entry, then there is nothing to cause them to be accountable to balance of power.
There is no print that says one per army?

Do they purchase per model or is just for the unit champion?
If the whole unit has the arrows wouldn't that in upon itself conflict with balance of power?

 Aben Zin wrote:
Magic items, at least by normal definitions, are the things bought from the magic item lists, either from the rulebook or the individual army books. They are bought, as the rulebook says, mostly for characters- standard bearers being the obvious exception.
Again the stupid banana metaphor applies here, but how about another one:
Say gum comes in 3 flavours; Peppermint, Spearmint and Pomegranate. Now toothpaste can come in spearmint flavour, but does that make it gum? No.

First, can you provide proof of the underlined section above? Because, on p.500, under MAGIC ITEMS, the first line that defines magic items in anyway is under Balance of Power; "Magic items are divided into six categories...". Second, your gum/toothpaste metaphor works just fine for me. So, gum and toothpaste can both come in spearmint flavor. Magic items are gum, and Enchanted Items are spearmint. So what's the toothpaste? What else comes in Enchanted Item flavor?

 Aben Zin wrote:
And why do they get those rules? Is it because they are magically enchanted? That sure makes them sound like magic weapons... I think maybe the problem here resolves around whether you use "magic item" in a literal interpretation, ie. any item that is magical and "magic item" from a rules perspective.
Now the first of these certainly does include the listed magic items, but would also include Ensorcelled weapons (after all they gain their power from a magical source), Dragon Armour (ditto) and such things as Elvish Waystones- All of which are undoubtedly magical and certainly items but wouldn't follow the rules for magic items in the game itself.

Here. Right here. I agree with you on this. The problem is, Ensorcelled Weapons, an Dragon Armour do not say they are Magic Weapons or Magic Armour. They just include special rules.
Enchanted arrows, though, are explicitly called Enchanted Items. That's the difference.

 Aben Zin wrote:
...it seems to me that it was included because as enchanted arrows are described as enchanted people would say "Ah! That character has enchanted arrows! That means he can't have any other enchanted items!".

I would agree with you, there. But. They are straight-up called Enchanted Items. This isn't them saying "boy, we'd better say this so people don't get them confused with Enchanted Items", this is them saying "they are Enchanted Items".

 Aben Zin wrote:
The BSB point is that it grammatically puts enchanted arrows as separate from magic items. OR means specifically one or the other. If they wanted to classify enchanted arrows as being magic items while at the same clarifying that BSBs with magic banners couldn't take them they would have said
"may not take magic items, including enchanted arrows". Saying "or" in this way explicitly prevents them from being magic items.

Of course, that's purely from a grammatical point of view, but combined with enchanted arrows be placed in the armoury, not the magic items section just further backs this up.

The word "or" is used to suggest that only one possibility can be realized, to suggest an inclusive combination of alternatives, and to suggest refinement, restatement, a negative condition, and a negative alternative.
As I said. Seems like they intended to do just what you said. But I can say "if the battle standard bearer takes a Magic Standard, they cannot take any other magic items or Magic Weapons". It's still true, technically. It's just redundant.
I mean, obviously there's something amiss in the book. That's why this discussion is taking place. So we can either say "the definitive statement 'enchanted arrows are Enchanted Items' is false!" or we can say "the suggestive statement '...cannot take any other magic items or enchanted arrows' is misleading".

 Aben Zin wrote:
To go further, purely from a logical point of view: Armybook rules top rulebook rules, right? The armybook rules say that the enchanted arrows are upgrades, not magic items. It does say that they are enchanted items but by putting them in the armoury section it removes them from the category of magic items, therefore they are upgrades and not magic items.

Specific > General when there are conflicts. But there aren't any.
The army book doesn't say anything about enchanted arrows other than as follows:

- they are Enchanted Items.
- they ignore the Unique rule.

Sure, they're listed in the Armoury. That's weird. And yes, they're unit upgrades. But. They're still Enchanted Items.

 Aben Zin wrote:
Yeah, I agree about the other arrow types. I'm not sure they're sub-par, in terms of actual usage at least. If you know what you're facing they definitely have potential. The main issue I think is with the cost- I've felt no desire to experiment with them because they take the cost per model to damn high!
I'm still tempted to try the swiftshiver/hand of glory combo, but I think that might just be a one trick pony.

There's a thread on here that runs the numbers on them all. Hagsbane is easily the best, followed by Trueflight. The issue is, Hagsbane is cheaper and the only time it doesn't come into play is when you've racked up -4 in to Hit penalties. The 'fires and Bodkins are useless against huge numbers of targets, and Swiftshiver only outperforms the others in a very specific scenario.

 Throt wrote:
It would appear that if there are no restrictions in the unit entry, then there is nothing to cause them to be accountable to balance of power.
There is no print that says one per army?

No. But they are Enchanted Items. Therefore, they follow all the rules for such unless stated otherwise.

 Throt wrote:
Do they purchase per model or is just for the unit champion?
If the whole unit has the arrows wouldn't that in upon itself conflict with balance of power?

Per model. And yes, that is part of the grey area.

Purchase is per unit, price for unit is per models in unit.

Options:
The entire unit may take one of the following types of enchanted arrows:
- (various types) .... (X) points per model


As a separately listed option item they would be available to multiple units/characters in a list as they have no listed restriction (ie. "-One Glade Guard unit with a standard bearer may take a magic standard worth ... " )

As a separately listed option item the BSB entry needs to address them specifically as a restricted MAGIC ITEM that a magic standard disallows.

I...have no idea what point you're trying to make, there.