Sword of Rezhebel question

Oddly, when I started the thread I was slightly tilted toward allowing the sword to parry. I am actually more convinced that is the best choice now. I also noted that some of the alternative interpretations make the spell even more powerful. Which is fine. I was really curious to see if there was a broadly accepted interpretation of the spell, and the answer to that question is a resounding "no"!

Yeah, on a lark, I polled my Mordheim campaign group about this, mentioning this thread and some of the questions and points presented therein. Universally, the response I got was "Stat boost, no parry, isn't a sword, not an actual item". So I think the best thing to do is to make sure everyone is playing by the same rules.

One of the reasons we treat it as a stat boost, which I think I mentioned here, is that magic attacks don't cause critical hits, which are hugely powerful. Because of this, making it a weapon really nerfs the spell.

I'm very confused by all of this first of all, our 'remaking' of The Hammer of Sigmar is entirely against the RAW (according to a lot of threads), but has been made because my Warrior Priest (with 1 (ONE) attack by the way) is 'too powerful' when it applies to his off-hand dagger as well. I believe the reason was that he took out a Vampire or something (think I wrote it in another thread). Actually I think that it got nerfed so much that it's basically just a 1-handed double-handed weapon that cannot crit, but causes 2 Wounds.

Our interpretation of Sword of Rezhebel on the other hand is based on RAW. Yes, it says 'sword' several places, but I agree that it refers to 'Sword of Rezhebel', not a 'Sword' with the rules of a sword, as MrDancy says. The same goes with whenever they write 'use the hammer' in The Hammer of Sigmar prayer; that refers to the spell name, not an actual hammer. It says that you gain +2 S, +1 A & +2 WS, that's it. Nothing about a parry. I don't mind anyone who plays with it as being able to parry though, would even wish we did the same (since my Slayer could use Master of Blades with it then), but I just don't see it in the actual rules.

Just to add to confusion i have one point to make: maybe the sword of rezhebel rule does not specify the parry because swords per se are already defined, and therefore the spell description only mentions the additional effects?

All this RAI/RAW stuff is overwhelming my simple mind, and as (almost) always one can argue the one or the other way - and i can understand various arguments. But FOR ME the most basic conception is that if i am summoning/casting a flaming sword i will be holding a flaming sword in my hand and not a flaming club or else, and of course the dagger in my other hand is not on fire (therefore not profiting from the properties of the flaming sword)... The same obviously does apply to the hammer of sigmar...

I would play it that way: the wizard with a stat of 1A can do 2 attacks with the sword of rezhebel (1 base +1 bonus) at strength/WS +2 and may parry with it, but the offhand attack is based on regular stats/weapon rules.

Rules in Mordheim don't always follow logic and have several inconsistencies while sometimes being not very distinct, so each gaming group should decide consistently for all participants.
Each to their own. Have fun

MrDancyPants wrote:

Otherwise, a person armed with two weapons, or a weapon and a shield, could not use the spell.

Of course this person could put away the shield to fight with two weapons. Weapons can be swapped out during combat, e.g. pistols and close cmbat weapons, spears and shields...

MrDancyPants wrote:

One of the reasons we treat it as a stat boost, which I think I mentioned here, is that magic attacks don't cause critical hits, which are hugely powerful. Because of this, making it a weapon really nerfs the spell.

I don't get this point. Are you saying attacks with the sword of rezhebel are magic attacks? Where is that written in the rules? The spell states that the wizard is making more, stronger and better base attacks (+1A, +2S, +2 WS), its mot a magic missile like the orc shaman can cast?

Um... It's a magic spell. If you were treating the Sword of Rezhebel as a physical weapon, then its attacks are magic attacks because the attack is from a weapon that was created specifically as a spell.

Again, the only issue I have with using the SoR as an item is that it requires the person to make assumptions about rules that aren't actually written in the spell's mechanics.

Treating it as a stat boost does nothing of the kind. Attacks made from the stat-boost interpretation are not magic attacks, so they're able to get critical hits. Attacks made from Magic Swordy interpretation cannot crit because they are specifically magic attacks. You'd be hitting the target WITH a spell.

mweaver wrote:

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

Actually, I just think I found an important difference. Notice the 'sword' in the above, and the 'Hammer' in the quote below:

DRD1812 wrote:

The wielder gains +2 Strength in hand-to-hand combat and all hits he inflicts cause double damage (eg, 2 wounds instead of 1). The Priest must test each shooting phase he wants to use the Hammer.

I believe that there's being referred to a 'sword' in the Sword of Rezhebel description, but the 'Hammer' in The Hammer of Sigmar, refers to the name of the prayer. Thus making all the difference.

If the rules had intended the interpretation Mr. Dancypants advocates, than it should say "the Sword gives the wizard..." or "the spell gives the wizard...".  But the authors instead used "sword" with a small "s".  So to assume it is not an actual sword you have to accept, as Mr. D. argues, that they were both lazy and left of "of Rezhebel" and that due to sloppy editing they neglected to capitalize "sword".  I'm going to go with Occam's Razor and assume they said what they meant.

I think whether the summoned sword can cause critical hits or not is somewhat more ambiguous than the sword's ability to parry (if you accept that a sword is summoned, than it can parry 'cause it is a sword and that is their special rule). If you assume that the magic is tied exclusively to the summoning and the spell creates a mundane sword, then that sword will parry. If you assume the sword has magical properties (which given it is flaming and boosts your stats, makes sense to me) then the magic doesn't cause critical hits rules might apply.

Since in our campaign we have about three magical swords running around that have various properties (+1 attack, etc.) and we allow those magical swords to cause critical hits, everyone in our group thought the summoned magical sword should also be able to cause critical hits.

The way I see it, the parry ability comes from a straightforward interpretation of the rules (admittedly not the only interpretation of the rules). Allowing it to cause crits is a house rule.

Probably not that this helps but in the Official Errata there is the question

Q: Can spells cause critical hits?

A: Directly, no. Indirectly, yes. The reference on page 56 to spells not causing critical

hits specifically refers to spells that cause direct damage such as Word of Pain. These

spells never cause critical hits. However, if a warrior is benefiting from a spell that

enhances his ability to fight, such as The Hammer of Sigmar, he will be able to cause

critical hits with these attacks.

The Key words i believe are "enhances his ability to fight"

So to the Original Question "Can the sword of Rezhebel Parry" no it just enhances his ability to fight.

But just because I'm curious what is your opinion on its "flaming-ness"?
I believe it shouldn't set people on fire like fire arrows but should do double damage against mummies

We aren't going there, viz the flaming bit.

Good find on the errata.

I'm on my phone and can't find a text copy of the rule to copy here, but if you look at the rules for Nicodemus it specifically says he wields the sword in one hand and may use his staff as a club in the other. It then says to note that the sword is a spell and not a normal sword and therefore cannot be used to parry.

And Josiah nails it.  

"Nicodemus can use his staff in close combat in two different ways: he can use the staff with both hands, in which case the staff counts as a club, but also allows Nicodemus to parry as if he were armed with a buckler; alternatively Nicodemus can use the staff in his left hand as a normal club while he's wielding the Sword of Rezhebel (see Lesser Magic spells) in his right hand.  Note: The Sword of Rezhebel is a spell and not a normal sword, therefore it cannot be used to parry."
(Quoting from p. 25 of the 2002 Mordheim Annual; the italics and boldface are true to the original, incidentally... including the name of the spell in italics the first time, but not the second time).

So, both sides seem to be half right and half wrong.  There is a summoned magical blade that the caster wields (so it it not a straight stat buff and does require one hand to use) but it does not parry as a normal sword would.  

Thanks Josiah (and where were you 35 or so posts back, I want to know!).

P.S. When I read the Nicodemus section to my wife, her response was "It's not like I ever make a parry roll anyway...

Work unfortunately, then thinking about how I would rule on this, before ultimately remembering that Nicodemus has special weapon rules and all the spells.

Good find! We have an official answer. Obviously there is no reason why a group cannot choose to house rule that the Sword of Rezhebel can parry but at least we know in a definitive way (surprisingly) that officially it cannot parry.

mweaver wrote:

If the rules had intended the interpretation Mr. Dancypants advocates, than it should say "the Sword gives the wizard..." or "the spell gives the wizard...".  But the authors instead used "sword" with a small "s".  So to assume it is not an actual sword you have to accept, as Mr. D. argues, that they were both lazy and left of "of Rezhebel" and that due to sloppy editing they neglected to capitalize "sword".  I'm going to go with Occam's Razor and assume they said what they meant.

I was going to mention that in my opinion the Mordheim rules have several instances of sloppy editing so one more instance wouldn't surprise me (unfortunately ).

I think we will probably go with no parry now that Josiah has pointed us to an official ruling.

Indeed, you are right about the editing. True of many rule sets, alas.

So no parry with the Sword of Rezhebel, but crits are possible. Great, now that this question is answered lets find the next...

mweaver wrote:

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.

He would need a 3rd arm for that. Also has anyone tried to cast the spell and use a different weapon with the stat increase from the spell?

flipchuck wrote:

He would need a 3rd arm for that.  Also has anyone tried to cast the spell and use a different weapon with the stat increase from the spell?

That's how my group plays it, as a strict stat increase. When I explained the Nicodemus FAQ, the universal reaction was, "What!? That's balls."

I think we're going to probably keep using it as a stat increase, but we'll draw a consensus on it pretty soon, I think.

If you are happy (and used to playing it) that way, I wouldn't worry about it. In our case the "it should parry" decision lasted one game before Josiah referred us to Nicodemus, so we will go with the Nic rule and it won't upset anyone.

We'll likely switch over to its proper use once we reboot the league.

I had a few more thoughts on this after reading through things again and reading further comments.
First, I think it is important to remember that the majority of people using the sword would be using the Warlock Hired Sword and Nicodemus as they are the ones that would have the spell outside of special circumstances of learning it with an arcane tome. Both these characters are otherwise weak combatants that only wield a single hand weapon. Not creating a weapon robs them of an additional attack that they probably still need.

That being said I think this spell even with the Nicodemus entry is still up to much interpretation. It is easy enough to read the spell as creating an additional weapon and providing the stat boost (even if not wielded), allowing you to choose your weapon arrangement when already armed with multiple weapons.

All we know for certain is that Nicodemus wields it as a hand weapon, allowing him to dual wield with his staff, and that is not a sword for the purposes of allowing parry.

So, if Nicodemus has the sword of rezhebel and his staff, does that mean he gets two extra attacks (one from sword and one from extra hand weapon)?

That is how we interpret it: one attack for the "other weapon (in Nic's case, the staff), one attack because you are wielding a sword, and one attack because of the magic nature of the sword.

I agree with mweaver, my understanding is that with his base attack of 1, the sword then gives an additional attack as per the spell giving him two (I would think these attacks would be made with the sword as his main weapon, but if you follow the stat boost rational I guess he could decide instead to take it with the club, or perhaps ignore the sword attacks entirely, take the stat boost it gives and attack with his staff in two-hands, though the notations are silent towards this). He then gets an additional attack from dual wielding his staff as a club in his left hand.