I carefully read the rules last night, but could find no such distinction. Although complete non-existence is, I suppose, a special case of 'left without detail'. I'm going to have to ask you to cite chapter and verse for a statement of this distinction, I'm afraid.
Now, I'll grant that there is no explicit statement that the two are the same, but there are several hints that this is meant to be the case. For example, the introduction of the Hero Points section on page 30 of HW:RiG talks about acquiring new items and increasing abilities in the same terms.
Several people seem to agree that there is no essential difference, as they use the 'cement at rating 12' rule.
> If it has no rating or defined powers, it's a new
> item
Its nothing at all. An item's name (or description of defined powers, if you'd rather, they amount to the same in HW, with its love of ambiguous references) is either going to clearly indicate it is a mundane item (like a Sword or Chain Hauberk), which does not require a rating, or it's name is an ambiguous reference, which requires a rating to be usable at all (that's how the game system works).
> The significant definition of an item to be cemented is, to my
> reading, that it should have appeared in play. By implication, I take
> that also to mean AS it appeared in play.
Which helps none if it appeared in play as an ambiguous reference. You seem to be saying that players should create abilities with ambiguous references but the GM should not. I fail to see the logic or desirability of that.
Powered by hypermail