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.
