"A character who is not allowed to wear ordinary armour cannot be given magical armour."

That's the rule given in the section for magic armour, and the debate basically comes down to whether the army book has to specifically say that you can't take armour.

Kingphesphestus is saying that it does, that you can take magical armour unless it's not given as an option in a character's magic item selection block. The current example up for debate is vampires-they can't buy mundane armour, so can they take magical?

Read through the challenge topic there, and post your thoughts here along with any quotes you feel are relevent.

No, only Blood Dragons get magic armour. There's only 3 unique armours anyway (nit including the Bone armour), and all seem to fit the Blood Dragons anyway. The Bretonnian shield, because as far as I know Blood Dragons are known for annoying Bretonnian knights (since blood dragons are basically corrupted knights), the Hauberk sounds like a purely practical military piece of armour, rather than a 'fashionable' armour for Lahmians, or no armour for necrarchs / strigoi. The Wailing helm is a helmet. I can't imagine armourless models wearing a magical helmet, so once again it fits in with Blood Dragons the best.


I think the rulebook is pretty self-explanitory on the rule though. If you can't wear light / heavy armour, no magical suits of armour. If you can't have a shield, no magic shields allowed. (BTW: I Think helms count as suits of armour).

As for armours that say 'no lahmians', GW has been known to restate clear rules, purely for the sakes of confusing people.

Vampire thralls of the von carstein blood line can take armour as an option so must be able to take magic armour also, following your reasoning.

This is exactly right. Only Blood Dragons (all levels) and Von Carstein (Thralls only) may take magic armours that is not the Armour of Bone.

The rule as written in the Warhammer Rulebook is as Vriishnak has said it is. The only way this rule is going to be nullified is if the army book states specifically that characters can take magic armour, even though there is no option for mundane armour.

Therefore, only BD Vampire Counts and Lords can take magic armour (other than the Armour of Bone) out of all the possible VC Lord choices.

Concurrently, the Skaven Master Assassin can not take magic armour as it has no option to take mundane armour of any kind, and has no special rule permitting it to take magic armour.

That is the long and the short of it, and I suspect any experienced gamer worth his salt will tell you exactly the same thing!

Less talking, more killing!
DLJ

OK simple said this is finished

<closed>

Any reason why this topic is to stay open either PM me or Moonshadows or another Topic leader of the Warhammer section to open it, with a valid reason

As you can see i have got this debate re-opened so lets continue

i still have not recieved a satisfactory reason that two of the armours are not allowed by lahmians/necrachs but one is - not includin armour of bone

Once again I shall re-iterate what I have said. Unless the Necrarch or Lahmian Vampires have a special rule that allows them to take magic armour despite not being able to take mundane armour, they can not take any form of magic armour.

As it happens, Lahmians and Necrarch DO NOT have such a special rule, and so can not take magic armour.

The fact that two magic items specifically say "May Not Be Taken By Lahmia/Necrarch" is irrelevant. The Wailing Helm can also not be taken, due to what I have explained in the above two paragraphs.

Taking something because the army book does not say you can't is incorrect. It is exactly like saying my entire goblin horde can fly, because the O+G army book does not say I can't (extreme example, but it is in the same vein).

Is there a flaw in my logic here somewhere?

DLJ

Lets go trhought this step by step ok.

Theory one; if do not have an option for mundane armour can not take magic armour.
Example; Bone armour and Von Carsteins vampire lord
Assumption; Vampire Lords Can wear Bone Armour

von carstein Vampire lords do not have an option for mundane armour
therefore they can not take magic armour

Flaw in this argument, They can wear bone armour, even though no where in its description does it say, can be taken by a character not normally allowed to wear armour.


Theory two; unless stated that you can not take magic armour, you can take it
Example; Bone armour and Von Carsteins vampire lord
Assumption; Vampire Lords Can wear Bone Armour

Von carstein vampire lord does not have an option for armour, however an take a mix of magic items from common or vampire lists.
Therefore can take Magic armour as not explicitly denied.
However Is a wizard so can not wear any armour that would interfere with his spellcasting abilities.
However Armour of bone does not interfere with spellcasting abilities.
Therefore can take armour of bone.

As you can see my theory makes more sense.

No, it doesn't. The Bone Armour specifically says that a wizard, which the Count is, can wear it in exception to the normal rules, with normal rules being that they're unable due to the restriction I mentioned.

It says a wizard can wear the armour without sacrificing his ability to cast spells, it says nowhere that ahe can wear it even though not normally allowed.
And since your theory is that unless they have an option for mundane armour they can't have magic armour, they can't wear it.

The key phrase is "a wizard can wear the armour". A better wording might be:
Wizards can wear this armour, and it does not negate their ability to cast spells.

I'm going to take this up with my fellows at the Warhammer Players Society. These guys are the best players from around the world, and Gav T frequents the boards as well from time to time. If anyone will know the correct answer, it is them.

I'll get back to you with their response.

DLJ

ok but please get examples i dont want you do come back and say, they say its this, there the best your wrong, i would like proof please.
Besides i can already guess there answer

Well, I'd definitley respect their opinion at the very least. They've been playing for years, and many of them were involved with the development of the game itself! Compared to you and me, who are both young and comparitively inexperienced, we should perhaps defer to what they say.

Anyways, this is what I have posted there:

One guy is adamant that a character can take magic armour if he doesn't have the option for mundane armour, so long as the armour does not state that he can not take it (e.g. The Flayed Hauberk (VC), which specifically can not be taken by Necrarch or Lahmian's. This person thinks it can be taken by a Von Carstein Count or Lord, even though they do not have the option for mundane armour).

I, on the other hand, am a staunch believer that a Von Carstein Count could not take the Flayed Hauberk, as this would contradict what is said in the main rulebook. There is nothing in the VC army book that contradicts what is said in the core rulebook (something to the effect of "Characters who can not take mundane armour may not take magic armour").

Really, the whole argument is based on whether you can do something because the rule book doesn't say you can't, or because the rule book specifically says you can.

Hopefully this is the root of the armgument, and doesn't offend you at all!

Cheers,
DLJ

Of course i would respect there opinion, ive been playing a fair while to .

As for what to post post my theory one with the things in bold.

good luck

The consensus on the WPS board is that you can only do what the rules say you can do. Not what the rules do not say you can't do.

The example cited was with Von Carstein Vampire Lords. They may not take magic armour because they do not have the option to take mundane armour. They may however, take the Armour of Bone, because the item description states "A wizard may wear this armour..." The Vampire Lord is also a wizard, and so may take this particular piece of equipment if he so wishes.

Is this clear enough for you?

DLJ

I must admit I haven't read every post in this topic, but here's my say:

Wizards could wear armour if they had the option, but the army books simply don't give the option. He can wear armour, but can't cast spells, unless the armour says he can. When magic armour says that a wizard can wear it, it's because he doen't normally have the option, it has nothing to do with spells. After that, the armour should say he can still cast. There really is no point on saying that wizards can't cast with armour, because they don't even have the option for it. It's a bit of over-emphasis on GW's part.

The above example by DLJ I agree with.

Does this reply help at all, other than strengthening the argument?

I believe when they say wizards lose their abilities to cast spells if they wear mundane armour they're just theorizing about why, in almost every fantasy framework (except the Diablo series) magic-users are disallowed from wearing armour. Stuff like, oh the metal disrupts the magical forces, the armour restricts intricate movements needed to cast spells.

In other words, even though they may say wizards lose their spellcasting ability if they wear armour, the option is NOT given to deliberately lose your spellcasting ability. You might want to give your von Carstein Lord a 1+ armour save, and screw his spellcasting, you're making him a pure melee machine, even though that means you're paying the extra point cost for his "lost" lvl 2 magic. But the option isn't even there.

I would like to say that I feel nothing has been said to counter my arguments of the wailing helm ect

Wailing Helm is a piece of magic armour. Therefore only characters with the option to take mundane armour can take the Wailing Helm, as per the rules in the Warhammer core rulebook. The only vampires with the option to take mundane armour are Blood Dragon Counts and Thralls, and Von Carstein Thralls. Therefore, these are the only Vampires capable of using the Wailing Helm.

Wizards can take the Armour of Bone, despite having no option for mundane armour, because it specifically says in its description that it can be taken by wizards.

Once again, I will state that the key phrase is "You can only do what the rules say you can do."

The view "The rules do not say I can not do it, therefore I can do it" is wrong.

Cheers,
DLJ

Like I said that is'nt an actual counter argument its more of a cover all statement when no other reason can be found

That is the reason, though. They don't have the option for mundane armour, so they can't take magic armour.

King, I can't see why you can't understand one of the fundamental truths of Warhammer! It's not a coverall statement, it's a fact which answers your question.

Why can't a Von Carstein Vampire Count take the Wailing Helm? Because the rules do say he can not have magic armour!

Does the army book contradict the point in the Warhammer rulebook regarding the use of magic armour by characters unable to take regular armour? Anywhere at all? I don't believe it does, and so that should conclude the debate completely.

I believe this whole argument stemmed from a Dark Elf Assassin who had been given magic armour in the Palace-Arena competition. The same answer occurs here: The Assassin can't have magic armour because the Dark Elf army book does not contradict the main rules in the appropriate place.

If this doesn't answer your question, please reiterate what it was and I'll try again to appeal to reason.

Cheers,
DLJ

I understand your point quite well you seem to not understand mine, which is due either to inconsistent editing, or what it can be argued that unless magic armour is dicned them they could take it your argument that you can't do something unless the rules say you can is flawed.

Where does it say he cannot have magic armour ?

Before anymore replies are posted I would like to say that i know excactly what the rule is and was just trying to show that gw does have a lot of inconsisten not to mention redundent rules in there books, but I do know that the rule is no option no armour, just like if you can not take a mundaned you can not take a magic shield. So there yougo, personaly iI feel if you want to give your vampire lord armour instead of magic casting abilities you should be able to choose what you want, magic or arour save, as most players of vamp counts would probably choose magic anyway as the remaining blood lines have plenty of things to make up for there lack of armour saves.

King, have you been leading me on? :angry: All that high blood pressure for nothing! It would be nice to give a Vampire Count an armour save, but until they change the rules we won't be able to ^_^

Cheers,
DLJ

Well I was just trying to demonstrate that certain rules of warhammer are very ambiguous, Of course this did start as a way to get our side an edge in the arena, but As i always say healthy disscussion never hurt anyone. B)

Problem is, the only way this can be considered ambiguous is if you ignore the relevent section in the core rulebook. Not to say that there aren't examples, but this isn't a particularly good one.

It is If taken in a greater context than just the rulebook the rulebook(core) is not perfectly clear in any event, but then the descriptions in vampire counts are not clear and can be confusing. haveing under one magic armour can't be taken by nechrarch and lahmians, but not haveing the same thing under another piece of armourcan lead to confusion don't you think, even if that confusion is only to wheather a lahmian thrall can take that item.

And that's why it was cleared up in a Q&A, as I pointed out quite a long time ago. Basically, they said that the block of text specifying that some vamps couldn't take it should have been removed.

I can see your point, King, but this really isn't the rule to choose if you are trying to show ambiguity.

I think a couple of rules that may demonstrate your argument are The Banner of the Barrows vs the Wood Elf Dryads Willow Aspect. The Banner allows grave guard to hit on a 3+, regardless of any modifier, whilst the Willow Aspect makes you hit on 6+, regardless of any modifier. But if both are required to occur at the same time, the rules conflict making a unit of grave guard hit a unit of dryads on a 3+ AND a 6+. Is this the kind of ambiguity you were trying to demonstrate, or have I still got the wrong end of the stick?

Cheers,
DLJ

I've never seen that question and answers where it say's that if that is the case then your right its not ambiguous, however to someone who has never seen it it can be confusing, Dark lord Jim thats a contradiction in the rules not ambiguity, please lets not start on all the mis prints and silly things lets just let this die shall we

Ah well, fair enough. I was just trying to find an example that would have supported this ambiguity of which you spoke of. But lets let sleeping squigs lie.

Cheers,
DLJ

If GW had to say everything that you cannot do then the rulebook would be much larger, it is much easier to say what you can do so. If they say you can you can do it, if they don't say that then you can't. Depening on where you play the rules could have little effect. If you play in tournements then they have the biggest effect, if amongst you and your friends you've decieded to change a rule thats fine, if you find that works better then more power to you. You cannot go to a tournement though and expect them to tell you everything you cannot do.

thats rediculous as it would not be much bigger at all, secondly, your right idf I went to a tournament I would have to play by there rules, thirdly if I had the motivation too look through all the books to find something that it dosen't say you can do that you obviously can Im sure I could find some examples.

And that would be what we call spam. If you don't have something to add, don't post.

Kingphes: I think you'll find it a lot harder than you think to find something you can do that it doesn't say specifically, as that book is entirely what the game is based on. If it's not in there, it's not part of the game.

Really, is that so, i'll just post one thing now cause im sick and don't have time to look but, Have you ever heard of something called "clipping", though of course thyis is not exactly what I mean it certainly show s that the rule book is not the be all and end all of the game

By clipping I think you mean hitting one model in a unit with a model like a chariot or similar?

If this is what you mean, then the rules do state that this is legal with words to the effect of "the charger must maximise their own frontage, not the frontage of the enemy". So by the rules clipping is entirely legal, if not particularly sporting.

Cheers,
DLJ

your a memeber over at players society dlj so im quite sure you know exactly what clipping is.

No, I'm not a member of the WPS, I just attend a club which is affiliated to the WPS and attend their events. I personally do not stoop to clipping, but I can't really complain if someone does it because the rules allow for this. C'est la vie.

Cheers,
DLJ