Grimstonefire:
So, this has the potential to be a sticking point, and as the errata is going to be used by many here I think it’s only fair to see what people think.
So the choices are:
Option 1. 70 Pts. Ignores Armour Save
This one uses the rulebook version, with the RH cost.
Option 2. Keep the rulebook version and keep the RH version
Obsidian Blade (50 pts, ignores armour)
Blade of Obsidian - renamed 
(70 pts, ignores armour and destroys armour + shield if it causes an unsaved wound)
Option 3. 50 pts. Ignores Armour save
I.e. drop the RH version completely.
Option 4. 70 pts, ignores armour and destroys armour + shield if it causes an unsaved wound
I.e. drop the rulebook version completely.
Border Reiver:
I’m going with keeping both versions and renaming the RH version.
Now you realize we need to do the same with the Obsidian Amulet? The RH version eats all our magic items limit but makes us immune to magic, while the rule book version clocks in at less than a third the cost and simply give MR2.
I know which version is likelier to show up in my army, but we might need to change the name of the RH Version, say to Obsidian Torc
Grimstonefire:
I see no magic item in the rulebook list of magic items that is called ‘Talisman of Obsidian’?
It’s only ones that have exactly the same name that will cause problems. I think most people would understand they are different if they have different names.
You are looking at the RH list of magic items right? That’s what this is for, I’ll leave Matt and Kev to worry about their list.
Thommy H:
I see absolutely no reason anyone would plump for anything besides Option 2. Option 1 is completely insane, while Option 3 and Option 4 just remove perfecly valid rules.
Option 2. If you don’t think it should work that way, you’re making a huge mistake.
Grimstonefire:
Lol. Well that settles that then… 
Border Reiver:
I see no magic item in the rulebook list of magic items that is called 'Talisman of Obsidian'?
It's only ones that have exactly the same name that will cause problems. I think most people would understand they are different if they have different names.
You are looking at the RH list of magic items right? That's what this is for, I'll leave Matt and Kev to worry about their list. ;)
Grimstonefire
My bad, bloody translated list!
Baggronor:
Dude, option 4 isn’t even an option 
You can’t ignore something thats in the new rulebook!
Option 1 makes no sense, as its clearly a different item; option 3, while possible, hardly seems like the right thing to do. Thus, I vote for option 2. Call it Mace of Gorgoroth or Blade of Azgorh or Doomfist’s Fruitknife or something.
Although I suspect if GW were to do it they would say option 3, ‘ignore this magic item’, like they did with Rune of Stoicism, Banner of the Undying Legion, etc. But we aren’t GW :cheers
dedwrekka:
So, this has the potential to be a sticking point, and as the errata is going to be used by many here I think it's only fair to see what people think.
So the choices are:
Option 1. 70 Pts. Ignores Armour Save
This one uses the rulebook version, with the RH cost.
Option 2. Keep the rulebook version and keep the RH version
Obsidian Blade (50 pts, ignores armour)
Blade of Obsidian - renamed ;) (70 pts, ignores armour and destroys armour + shield if it causes an unsaved wound)
Option 3. 50 pts. Ignores Armour save
I.e. drop the RH version completely.
Option 4. 70 pts, ignores armour and destroys armour + shield if it causes an unsaved wound
I.e. drop the rulebook version completely.
Grimstonefire
There's a caveat in the rulebook that says that if the points cost listed doesn't match the one in an army book, then you go with the cost listed in the army book.
Thommy H:
Doesn’t matter - it’s not the same item, it just happens to share the same name.
Da Crusha:
There should not be a poll. Brettonians, empire, High elves, dark elves, lizardmen, ogre kingdom, beastmen, skaven, warriors of chaos, tomb kings and vampire counts, all have the following statement written in their FAQ.
“Note that if a magic item is listed in both an army book and the warhammer rulebook, use the points value given in the army book, with the rule printed in the warhammer rulebook.”
this is the reason non official FAQ’s are not respected. you cannot just choose to abide by some rules while ignoring rules that don’t favor our army. Im sure if GW had written a FAQ for us this statement would have been in it. If we want to be respected as an official army we should follow ALL GW Rulings.
ignoring this rule would be the same as WoC players ignoring the faq for the book of secrets because now that the faq has been released the item is practically useless.
If you want to maintain the integrity of the website and want chaos dwarfs to be recognized as equals to all of the other races in the warhammer world then you must abide by all the rulings set forth by GW. The FAQ should be written strictly using RAW and if there is a contradiction, like in the case of bull centaurs needing a “troop type”, only then, should a decision be made.
Doesn’t matter - it’s not the same item, it just happens to share the same name.
Thommy H
“Note that if a magic item is listed in both an army book and the warhammer rulebook, use the points value given in the army book, with the rule printed in the warhammer rulebook.”
yes they have different descriptions, but they share the same name and the faq ruling would change the description so that both items would be the same.
Grimstonefire:
Is there a precedent out there for an item with the exact same name being in the rulebook that is different to the army book rules?
If there isn’t I think there is some room for interpretation, as there is no RAW for occasions where the actual rules of the magic item are significantly different from the rulebook.
This is the crucial point, whether it actually is the same magic item or not. I hate to pull the ‘RH list is not an army book’ card, but it is a factor to consider as well.
and the faq ruling would change the description so that both items would be the same.
Show me where they have done this and I will be convinced.
Da Crusha:
and the faq ruling would change the description so that both items would be the same.
Show me where they have done this and I will be convinced. ;)
Grimstonefire
"Note that if a magic item is listed in both an army book and the warhammer rulebook, use the points value given in the army book, with the rule printed in the warhammer rulebook."
There would be no reason why they have written to use the description in the rulebook rather than the description in the army book, if that is not what they wanted players to do.
Da Crusha:
The WoC book has a berserker sword 50 pts - extra attacks for every model in base contact. in the new rulebook there is the berserker sword 20 pts which grants frenzy. since this is the exact same situation that we are dealing with we can wait and see how GW addresses it.
Neil:
As far as I can see, the Warriors of Chaos FAQ, they don’t address it. If we are doing our own unofficial Ravening Hordes FAQ, the option 2 is the common sense option.
Da Crusha:
As far as I can see, the Warriors of Chaos FAQ, they don't address it.
Neil
perhaps this is how GW already addressed it
"Note that if a magic item is listed in both an army book and the warhammer rulebook, use the points value given in the army book, with the rule printed in the warhammer rulebook."
I would agree with GW however they rule it.
EDIT: I just sent an email to gw about the berserker swords. we will see what they say.
Baggronor:
Well if they haven’t addressed Berserker Sword, I’d say its probably treated as a separate item as the rules are different, but lets wait and see if GW responds to the email.
I would point out that the RH list is not designed for use with 8th, and 8th was not written with any consideration of RH CDs (a get-you-by list from 2 editions ago), therefore this is obviously not a deliberate move by GW to replace or remove the RH Obsidian Blade; as far as they are concerned it doesn’t even exist. Thus I would say that applying the usual magic item ruling to RH CDs is a bit like trying to fit a new bicycle tyre to a Penny-farthing. Not that that would stop GW from doing it; they have simply expunged certain items that didn’t fit 8th or were inconvenient, as I mentioned earlier.
Its an oddball situation.
Servius:
This is some sort of joke… Right?
I mean… really read the FAQ again and hopefully everyone will see the folly.
The Quoted rule in question (posted by Da Crusha) is incomplete… Namely the heading referring as to what items are ultimately effected… here is the ENTIRE Rule.
From 2010 Warriors of Chaos FAQ
Page 112 �?" Common Magic ItemsNote that if a magic item is listed in both an army book and theWarhammer rulebook, use the points value given in the armybook, with the rule printed in the Warhammer rulebook.
As you can see… the Heading brings the idea of needing a FAQ for the items to a Grinding Halt. Due to the fact that neither the CD Obsidian Blade or WoC Berserker Sword are listed in the Common Magic Items of their respective lists they are not being referred to in the errata.
BTW… Every new errata has this EXACT same FAQ point added.
Baggronor:
Um yeah, that pretty much clears that one up then. So just a name change then, as it will be confusing for when someone turns up with two Obsidian Blades.
Grimstonefire:
It does clear it up I think. They are in a RH specific list that is not common.
For the sake of clearing matters up, we could call it ‘Blade of Obsidian’ or something like that?
Baggronor:
For the sake of clearing matters up, we could call it 'Blade of Obsidian' or something like that?
Lol thats more likely to cause confusion, not less. Replace either 'Blade' or 'Obsidian' :)
(70 pts, ignores armour and destroys armour + shield if it causes an unsaved wound)
