Sword of Rezhebel question

My wife asked an interesting question last night (happily, one to which the correct answer was not immediately needed): does a wizard who has the Sword of Rezhebel up gain the ability to parry a melee attack?   My immediate reaction was to think no.... but I looked up the spell, which says:

Sword of Rezhebel Difficulty 8
A flaming sword appears in the hand of the wizard, promising red ruin to all who stand in his way. The sword gives the wizard +1 Attack, +2 Strength and +2 Weapon Skill. Take a Leadership test at the beginning of each of the wizard’s own turns. If the test fails, the sword disappears

The spell description clearly calls it a sword, and swords grant the Parry rule. So it looks like to me the correct answer is "yes".  But I thought I would toss the question out there and tap the collective wisdom of the forum.

We play it as a sword when we remember that its a sword.

I agree with the distinguished Von Kurst. The spell description clearly states that the spell creates a sword, which give the wearer the ability to parry.

Thanks, gents, as always.

-Michael

My group doesn't play it as a sword because the name of the spell is "Sword". We play it as a stat increase spell. It doesn't have parry because it doesn't say it has parry. It's not a one or two handed weapon because it doesn't say it's a weapon of any kind. "The sword [of rezhebel] gives +2ws, +2s, +1a". Otherwise, a person armed with two weapons, or a weapon and a shield, could not use the spell.

This means a Chaos Warrior with the Mark of Tzeench could never use the spell because they always have a shield and a weapon or two weapons.

Similarly, the Silver Arrows of Arha do not require a bow to fire them.

Um, the spell is quoted above. It most definitely says that it is a sword. That said you are within your rights to play it as a stat increase spell in your group.

Quote :

It's not a one or two handed weapon because it doesn't say it's a weapon of any kind

Well, it kinda says its a sword. No one was pretending otherwise as far as I can tell. The spell as written is quoted above. The spell as you have written it is how YOU have written it. If the sword referred to was supposed to be the name of the spell, the author could have written the description differently or he could have capitalized the word sword.

Quote :

This means a Chaos Warrior with the Mark of Tzeench could never use the spell because they always have a shield and a weapon or two weapons.

So the Chaos warrior can't use a sword? Also if that is a problem it is only a problem for groups that use the fan made rules for the Chaos Warrior, if they choose to make it a problem.

Quote :

Similarly, the Silver Arrows of Arha do not require a bow to fire them.

I don't recall anyone saying they did.

It is pretty clear the spell creates an actual sword. It says so ("A flaming sword appears..."). Note that the part you described says "The sword gives..." not "The spell gives..." (emphasis added). But I am certainly not trying to convince you to change how you play it! It does not explicitly state that sword grants parry. However, since swords in Mordheim grant that ability, it seems a reasonable interpretation that this sword does too. And we do require you to have a free hand to wield the sword (which we did even before the parry question came up).

You don't need a bow to fire the Silver Arrows because the spell description makes it clear you don't need one ("Silvery arrows appear from thin air and circle around the wizard, shooting out to strike his foes.").

I have always just treated it as a stat increase spell. This is simply because it gets murky if you try to imply additional effects. For example, it is called a flaming sword so does that mean that it is like a torch and puts fear into animals or it is like fire arrows and can set warriors on fire?

However, I do see why you would apply parry to this spell. All sword type weapons that exists (from standard swords to rapiers to sword breakers) all have the parry rule. Therefore I don't have a problem with giving this 'sword' the parry ability but I just don't feel that it is quite so cut-and-dry that it automatically gets the parry ability. I definitely wouldn't oppose any view if it is agreed on within the group.

Here's the problem with treating spells like actual weapons. If you have two weapons already, the spell is useless. Silver Arrows of Arha would then need a bow, because the spell only creates arrows. If the Sword of Rezhebel creates a sword, it doesn't have the parry rule, much like a two-handed sword doesn't have the parry rule. The Orc spell, Clubba, specifically states that it counts as a normal club that grants +2s and +1a. The Sword of Rezhebel says nothing about counting as an actual sword.

Part of my issue with it creating an actual weapon is that it's in the fluff saying that it creates a weapon. Historically, what Games Workshop puts into the fluff and what actually happens in the rules are two very different things. And because rule sets are permissive, if it doesn't say you can, then you can't unless your group decides to houserule it.

The argument that if the SoR creates a sword then the SAoA creates a bow doesn't hold up well given that the spell descriptions specifically say SoR creates a sword and SAoA does not need a bow. In this case you cannot generalize from one spell to the other.

And yes, if SoR creates a sword you attack people with, you cannot fight with two other weapons. Indeed, even if you don't accept Parry because it does not say so, I would be very dubious if someone wanted to melee with two weapons AND the SoR.

I'm not saying that the Silver Arrows creates a bow. It creates arrows. If the argument is that these spells create physical items, instead of having an effect that resembles a weapon, then you would first NEED a bow in order to make use of the Silver Arrows. Otherwise, you just have a handful of arrows that you can't shoot, much like having Fire Arrows or a Black Arrow but no bow. The fluff description says it creates a fiery sword, but the spell mechanics do not.

However, playing it as a simple stat increase, which is all that it references in the description, removes every single one of these problems and treats it just like the Norse rune "Bear's Might", except that Bear's Might is terrible.

MrDancyPants: " If you have two weapons already, the spell is useless."

Except for the bit where it grants +2 Str and +2 WS...

I think both ways we have talked about it being played here the number of attacks the caster receives would be the same. Assume a caster with an attack statistic of one with a club (or clubs):

Counting it as a sword = 3 attacks: sword (main attack), sword (bonus to attacks stat from the SoR), and club (2nd weapon)

Counting as a Stat Boost = 3 attacks: club (main attack), club (bonus to attacks stat from the SoR), and club (2nd weapon).

Right?

I have no problem with people seeing it as a stat boost. But I am inclined to use the "It's a Sword" interpretation (with the Parry special rule) since the spell fairly specifically says it is a sword.

One of the things I like about the collaborative way we play is that none of our players ever get their knickers in a twist when these kinds of discussions come up.

MrDancyPants, the Spell description for the Silver Arrows very clearly describes the conjured arrows as zipping off on their own.  No bow needed.  Counting the SoR as a physical weapon in no way implies that you need a bow for the Silver Arrows.

If you have two weapons already, you can't carry the sword, so you would be able to get the increased weapon skill or strength, same with an ithilmar weapon not actually giving the Initiative bonus if you aren't wielding it.

Again, you're using the fluff description as an actual game mechanic. If you play the spell as a weapon, then you can't use it with two weapons already wielded because the rules clearly say that you can only wield two weapons (unless you're a dirty skaven). So if you have two weapons, you don't get to use the Sword of Rezhebel spell as a sword, you don't get the WS, S, or A bonuses, because you can't legally wield the weapon.

Counting it as a sword = 2 attacks: sword (main attack, base strength, base WS), and club (2nd weapon, base strength, base WS)

Counting as a Stat Boost = 3 attacks: sword (main attack, +2 S, +2 WS), club (bonus to attacks stat from the SoR, +2 S, +2 WS), and club (2nd weapon, +2 S, +2 WS).

And since the spell doesn't say "Counts as an actual sword" the way that Clubba does, then it doesn't count as an actual sword. Because of this AND because it doesn't include the Parry rule, you don't get to parry with it.

And since it's a spell, and spells don't cause critical hits, using it as a weapon doesn't allow for critical hits, where as a stat boost does.

In order to count it as an actual sword, with all the sword abilities, you literally have to make up words to insert into the description of the spell that simply aren't there. I've never met a single person who has ever looked at it as anything other than a stat boost because that's all the mechanics of the spell say it is.

RationalLemming, I do take your point about over-extrapolating from a description. And for that matter, Mr. DP, about fluff and effect not always being consistent in GW rules.

I simply find that using ONLY what the item/spell mechanics say, and not what the italicized description says, works best for Mordheim. It simply makes for a smoother game.

Agree with MrDancy.

MrDancyPants: "In order to count it as an actual sword, with all the sword abilities, you literally have to make up words to insert into the description of the spell that simply aren't there."

Spell Description: "The sword gives the wizard +1 Attack, +2 Strength and +2 Weapon Skill."

Ink is money. "the sword" is a shorter way of saying "The Sword of Rezhebel".

What it doesn't say is "The Sword of Rezhebel counts as an actual sword that gives +1 Attack, +2 Strength, and +2 Weapon Skill."

You have to make that up in order to play it that way. The Orc spell, Clubba, on the other hand, says exactly that.

You certainly are tenatious. Playing the rule this way makes sense in our games and follows with the actual wording of the spell.

We have not encounterd a cosmic shift by playing that way.

I think its important whatever way you play it all players in your group agree.

Sliver arrows should not require a bow no matter how you interpret the rules as it says "Silvery arrows appear from thin air and circle around the wizard, shooting out to strike his foes"

but...

Does the Hammer of Sigmar give the bonuses of being a hammer when calculating the injury?
yet the prayer says" ALL hits he inflicts cause double damage" so this includes off hand?
and the prayer Says "the wielder gains +2 Strength" where as the Sword of Rezhebel says "the sword gives the wizard.."

so form this i would assume (just me) that Hammer of Sigmar imbues the wizard not summoning an actual hammer (its just a name, like hammer of the witches being a book the malleus maleficarum)

yet the sword of rezhebel is a sword which can appear or disappear i personally would not give it parry because it doesn't specify but if it made the other players happy because you are losing an off hand attack

Technically, the rule doesn't say that, the fluffy description of the spell says that the arrows shoot on their own.

The last sentence of "The Hammer of Sigmar" is "The Priest must test each shooting phase he wants to use the Hammer." The fluff description of the prayer also says "This weapon of the faithful glows with a golden light..." So, using "The Hammer" and the fluff description saying that it's a weapon, by your reasoning it would create a hammer weapon, but without the concussion rule.

My reasoning is that "The Hammer" is short for "The Hammer of Sigmar" in reference to the name of the stat-boosting spell and the fluffy description is only background story for what the spell looks like within the fictional universe. (And yes, even off-hand weapon hits are doubled)

Like wise, the exact same language is used for the Sword of Rezhebel. They shortened it to "the Sword" in the rule mechanics because there's no reason to fully write out "the Sword of Rezhebel" when it should suffice to simply say "the Sword".

This is why we treat it as a mere stat boost because the spell does not specifically say that it creates a weapon or item (like the Orc spell Clubba does).

Think I might elaborate what I mean by 'I agree'; it's mostly just concerning the whole "read the description and go with that", though that can prove to be a problem as well. For instance, my Warrior Priest with The Hammer of Sigmar is way too powerful when it applies to his offhand, as the RAW says (since it's a buff, not a weapon, which makes sense when you have to test only when to use it). We changed that to 'imbue' the weapon instead, making his main hand (or offhand if you want) more powerful.

For The Sword of Rezhebel, which I just got on my Dwarf Troll Slayer, I believe it will become a bit more badass if allowed to parry. The spell has already been quoted and says nothing about a parry nor does it speak of causing fear into creatures fearing fire. Anyway, the only valid argument is ofc. if anyone has seen in Game of Thrones how good a fiery sword is to parry with

OK, I'll bite: How did your Dwarf Trollslayer learn a lesser magic spell?  I don't think that can happen without a house rule, although the idea of a studious, spell-castin' trollslayer does bring a smile to my face.

Question answered on the other thread. I had forgotten about the alchemist's notebook.

Aipha wrote:

For instance, my Warrior Priest with The Hammer of Sigmar is way too powerful when it applies to his offhand, as the RAW says (since it's a buff, not a weapon, which makes sense when you have to test only when to use it). We changed that to 'imbue' the weapon instead, making his main hand (or offhand if you want) more powerful.

I am getting so confused by the examples given. If I understand correctly the spell is what is commonly referred to as a 'buff'. Meaning that it applies to the warrior and all of his attacks. Then Aipha says that that is too powerful so his group makes it a weapon buff... Which is sort of what we do, except we just say that the troll slayer now has a sword and we don't need a house rule.

I mean what is your troll slayer armed with now? If its dwarf axes, then I can see why you wouldn't want to replace it with a pesky sword.

I'm not following this. I may be wrong but if the spell is held to buff ALL attacks in your interpretations then it buffs any weapon that the warrior happens to have. So it could accidentally buff a sword if the warrior had one, and I assume the warrior could parry with his buffed sword? BUT if you just read the spell and think 'oh a sword appears', then you couldn't parry because its a magical sword...

After all of the discussion I'm unsurprisingly unconvinced. The way we play it the warrior gains a flaming sword, thus he only gains the benefits of the sword with his main attacks and may use another weapon if he has one in the off hand which gains no benefit.

Now are those of you upset by this worried that he can parry or that the warrior has lost a +2 St attack with his off hand? Similarly, the Hammer spell; if we play that it is a hammer why is that bad? Our warrior only gains the benefit of the Hammer with one hand as opposed to a warrior being buffed with two weapons. I am not seeing my interpretation as broken or in some way an unfair advantage.

Quote :

The spell has already been quoted and says nothing about a parry nor does it speak of causing fear into creatures fearing fire.

The rules for torches were published long after the original rule book was published.