Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
I am not looking for a discussion as to whether it is or isn't considered a magical weapon. That is to be discussed by you and your opponent. As the "yes camp" and the "no camp" never really gains much ground. I would PREFER it to be yes it is, but I am by no means saying it is. I wanted more of a discussion on my logic and how it would hold up in a discussion pre-game:
Con arguement: It isn't listed under the magic weapon list.
Pro arguement: That is because of the nature of arcane items and the magic item heirarchy. Arcane items are magic user only items, and that restriction takes precedence. Magic Weapons are open to anyone, so why would I give a dinky caster with one attack this really cool sword. The 'magic weapon list' is open to the public, and given the restrictions of being a wizard only item was listed in the arcane items to prevent multiple arcane items on the character.
Con: It is a magic item that is a mundane weapon.
Pro: If you look under Common Magic Items in the newest version of the rules even, Sword of Might and all of those items are given the description as Weapon, and not magic weapon. This sets precedent that Games Workshop takes that stance that players can infer a weapon with magic abilities is a magic weapon and should be treated as such. Which is how most arguements are won, when neither can offer refutable prove.
Con: Points show it is a mundane weapon. Most great weapon magic weapons cost in the ball park of 40 points. The staff of dargoth isn't anywhere near that.
Pro: Well Points reflect the 'usefulness' of an item. Lets compare the basic great weapon. The great weapon for a lord is 6 points, while it is only 4 points for a hero. The lord suffers a 50% increase in point cost because it is far more useful on a lord than a hero. 2 strength 5+ attacks is less useful than 3 strength 5+ attacks. Weapon skill 6 will be harder to hit than weapon skill 5. A braystaff in the hands of a Beastlord would receive 4 strength 7 attacks, and a Wargor would receive 3 strength 6 attacks. These are impressive characteristics. In the hands of a bray shaman they receive 2 strength 5 or 6 attacks. As casters they have significantly poor characteristics (WS and Armor Save) and as such giving them a strikes last weapon reflects this. Given the nature I feel it is only fair to say that the arguement of point cost isn't nearly as convincing as it should be based on the wielder.
If you can offer more arguements suggesting it is a mundane item I would appreciate that as well. I am not trying to settle the debate, I am looking for help in convincing a single person, my opponent, that it is a magic weapon long enough to start the game, and after that i could care less what opinion he has on the item.
Last edited by The Evil Giraffe; July 23rd, 2007 at 17:31.
Thanks! Most of my knowledge has been outdated I guess. I didn't know they clarified the issue.