Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Q: As Butchers and Slaughtermasters can take an ironfist, does this
mean that they can also wear magical armour? (p32)
A: Yes.

Designers Note: I have to hold my hands up for not spotting that
allowing a Butcher or Slaughtermaster to take an ironfist, would also
allow them to take magic armour. Allowing them access to magic
armour certainly wasn’t my intention, and it’s something we’ll
certainly fix when we do the next edition of the Ogre Kingdoms army
book. However, after much debate, we’ve decided that it does not
give the Ogres an unfair advantage, so we’ve decided to leave the
rule as it is written for the time being. That said, I’d personally
recommend that you avoid giving your Butchers and
Slaughtermasters magic armour – doing otherwise goes against the
spirit, if not the letter, of the rule.

Jervis Johnson 7/12/2011

Does anyone else feel this is a fairly ridiculous response? Yes, you can totally use them......... we didn't mean it.......... I don't think you should.......... you'd be a doody-head if you did.

It's like, I think we were better off without the ruling. "For the time being," was also thrown in there. And "certainly fix in the next edition." Which, I'm totally sure will be right around the corner. /sarcasm

So people who were against it can say they have a morale high ground signed by the JJ himself. Those who want to use it can point to the very clear non-italics rule. So what do you guys think?

I mean on one hand, I'm glad the spirit of the rule was brought up. RAW seems to get a lot of credence, but I think common sense quashes a lot of these things. Not saying I told you so, but I felt they wouldn't back-door sneak in something that big. And Ogres who don't wear gutplates but it's okay they wear full plate (as long as its magic)?

I'm okay with guys using it, and I probably would too (if I had a build that worked) but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Now even moreso because of the FAQ. If he just came out and said, "woops, we didn't mean it, but it rocks," then I'd stfu and not care.

It depends on what kind of army someone is doing in my opinion. If they are going to a tourney and fluff was left at home then sure it makes sense. In the case of people trying to fit into the OK fluff then no they shouldn't. Personally I don't care so long as they aren't cheating (and now they aren't).

It does seem a bit dippy and is another example of how GW could benefit from throwing their army books out to some kind of focus group in advance for proof reading (if you're involved in writing a document, you tend not to spot omissions/errors because it seems obvious to you).

Anyhoo, there's plenty of wizards who buck the "wear armour, can't cast spells" rule - Vampires & Chaos Sorcerers spring to mind - that another race being able to do so is neither here or there in my opinion.

Flashman wrote:It does seem a bit dippy and is another example of how GW could benefit from throwing their army books out to some kind of focus group in advance for proof reading

Or it might just be that Jervis is being churlish.

Apparently he was telling people that armour wouldn't be allowed, but was over ruled. So he added this rather silly note.

No offence but i can't for the life of me think of any piece of magical armour i'd really want on an ogre wizard. Better to give him some arcane junk and/or a ward.

HoverBoy wrote:No offence but i can't for the life of me think of any piece of magical armour i'd really want on an ogre wizard. Better to give him some arcane junk and/or a ward.

But the Armor of Destiny is armor AND a ward. Assuming you don't give it to say, a Tyrant. Which the Slaughtermaster often overrides (simply for lack of points, mostly)

I like the ruling, obviously. The note felt....ok, whatever dude, see ya in 9th (doesn't hold breath) -shrug- Oh well. A case of RAW beating RAI.

Think about this for a second guys the dudes are T5, whatever it is that's wounding them regularly is ignoring that epicly amazing armor save anyway.

The armor option, specifically the Armor of Destiny, is a valuable option for Slaughter Masters as it allows them to semi-fill the role that the loss of the Tyrant has left open.

Armor of Destiny and an Ironfist gives a pretty durable general. If you want him to be stronger in combat you can give him the Greedy Fist so he's Str5 because the Armor gives a Ward Save without taking a Talisman slot.


Jervis just seems butthurt over getting overruled on this issue so he tries to guilt trip you.


Armor is important to us because, unlike other armies, we can't afford both a fighty and a caster lord in anything below 3000 points(which is still pushing it)

The Armor allows us to bridge the gap so we can have good characters.

And it still wont outeperform the talisman by much is all i'm saying.

You pay 8 more points above the Talisman to get a 4+ armor.

Sure, it doesn't do much against Str6 or armor piercing, but against weak stuff it is outstanding. There is nothing worse then losing your General and primary Wizard to a few stray str3 wounds.

it also allows you to take another Talisman of some kind(greedy fist) and still have a ward save.

HoverBoy wrote:Think about this for a second guys the dudes are T5, whatever it is that's wounding them regularly is ignoring that epicly amazing armor save anyway.

Maybe, maybe not, but it's handy to have the option.

Anyhoo, there's plenty of wizards who buck the "wear armour, can't cast spells" rule - Vampires & Chaos Sorcerers spring to mind

2 now 3 out of all. They make a point of having rules stating you can't.

Grey Templar wrote:Jervis just seems butthurt over getting overruled on this issue so he tries to guilt trip you.

Ah, I don't know the internals of GW.

Armor is important to us because, unlike other armies, we can't afford both a fighty and a caster lord in anything below 3000 points(which is still pushing it)

I almost believed you. But a Chaos Sorcerer is 85 and a Butcher is 100 with much better stats. Yes, they don't have O&G costs, but they don't have O&G stats. The upshot is no one is going to ever take a Tyrant now. They will vanish. If Bruisers weren't standard bearers, no one would take them either--they are better than Tyrants for cost, but even a lvl 1 Butcher can heal himself. And they FAQ'd greatweapons into Slaughtermasters, giving them extra oomph (though that looked to be an ommission from Butchers).

There used to be the super tyrant builds with fencer's blades and scales and whatever. Now you can just have a self-healing Slaughtermaster with a crazy armor and ward save. Which doesn't match anything in the army book.

A butcher is a hero choice. I said we can't really afford a Fighty Lord and a Caster Lord.

A lvl4 caster is too useful not to take, but his increase expense, and the overall imporvement of the book, makes the tyrant less attractive.

The tyrant's purpose last book was to stand in the front rank and absorbe the hits for the rest of the army and to smash stuff up. Now that we are much more durable/cheaper that job isn't as important. And you HAD to take him to get the lvl4 anyway.

Now you can take the Tyrant's points and get more bodies/new goodies in your list. Thats much better then having the Tyrant.

GW has spoken weither JJ wants likes or even really cares about it, all questionable.
They do gain free publicity out of you guys however so kudos on GW, their marketing may be weird but it works so far.

I said we can't really afford a Fighty Lord and a Caster Lord.

Uh. So? What does it matter if they are Lords or Heroes? A fighty hero that's as good as other books' fighty Lords isn't a bad thing.

Plublicity generally refers to people who normally wouldn't care suddenly taking interest.

because there is a huge difference between a Lvl2 and a lvl4 caster.

2 lvl2s =/= 1 lvl4

The point as that the Tyrant is truly dead, no argument will change that. Gw made a concious decision on it hough so there we go.

Indeed, the Tyrant is dead for competitive play.

There was lots of wimpering that the SM couldn't be the general in the new book.

Then Jervis went and made Mawseeker waaay overcosted from being way under costed. It should drop by like 15 points.