What do you think Official 50% Lords/Heroes means to the game?

[Demian]

Well, aside from that... has anyone noticed any "missings" in the new FAQ from it's previous versions? (ie: the part where Unmodified Leadership was deleted, for instance)

because, sometimes GW do that and it's really hard to spot, since suppressed text is not in magenta >_>

EDIT:

pffff I almost had a mini heart-attack. Yeh, you can still use IP against spells, such as Spirit leech and Mindrazor. it's just redundant that they have a text right there saying you can't, but FAQ-it (yes, exactly as it sounds...) allowing you

D:

 

[Sception]

The most common sense interpretation of the rule and the one that makes sense when reading the undead legion army rules is all the army special rules are replaced with the undead legion special rules while the unit specific rules use the rules in their origin rules in the army books as intended. This is what the undead legion book says, it's why it doesn't reverse errata the tomb kings or vampire counts army special rules for those armies, and it's why characters can use magic items from the book they are out of, went tomb kings and princess can join their chariot units etc.

Except that that doesn't follow. Ditching the rules that apply to the armies, and keeping only the rules that apply to particular units, actually leads to exactly the opposite interpretation. Because access to the faction item lists isn't granted to units specifically, it's granted generally to units within that army. If those units appear within some other army, then they are no longer 'characters in a vampire counts army' and as such the rule, as written, does not apply to them. It is, essentially, an 'army rule', of the category that Undead Legions specifically does not keep.

Same with the chariot thing. The rule may be a special rule of the skeleton chariot unit, but again, who can benefit from it is not a function of units but of armies. If the rule was 'tomb kings/princes/heralds on chariots can join this unit' then it would be as you say, but the rule is 'characters in a tomb kings army with a chariot can join this unit'. It is a rule that applies its benefits to a specific army - the tomb kings army - not to specific units within that army, so if those units appear in some other army, in this case undead legions, then that rule does not apply to them.

Again, it ends up falling under your 'army rules' category, in that it is a rule that applies to 'tomb kings armies' and not to specific tomb kings units.


I don't disagree with you on the intent, but the intent is not what is written, which is exactly what errata is for in general and exactly why errata is needed in this case.

 

[PureSphinx]

The salt is so real!! I just started a Daemons army earlier this week and joined their forum to look at tactics, and came across this thread's counterpart. Everyone there thinks it's stupid and will make armies like ours (specific shoutout!) OP. They find it so hard to believe that a VL stands a chance against a Greater Daemon, and now they are complaining that hero hammer is back so blender lords win.

As if that wasn't enough, they are all worrying about "Nagash and te Undead Legions being FAQ'd." I don't think people consider this a legitimate army, regardless of what it actually says. The murmuring and anti-GW sentiment is strong with them.

 

[John Rainbow]

Eh, Daemon players had their time in the sun last edition. They should let the other races have some fun!

 

[Demian]

Nightshroud > Greater Daemons, saddly D:
WoC Daemon Princes, however are much more complicated.

Anyways, the way we play it here in my group is: Undead Legions is the new official VC and TK army. It draws from both of them, all options included. The only exception to this is that some characters are no longer elegible, specifically named characters, like Heinrich Kemmler or Settra. Others, "survived" this "re-edition" and can be chosen. Others, have been upgraded, like Mannfred.

All Undead are unified and are no longer a force of Destruction, but Unaligned.
Yes we have two units that are named in the same way, being "Skeleton Warriors" and both have diferent versions of them. (which begs the question: can a TK Skeleton Warrior unit be given a magical standard, via the options listed on the VC Skeleton Warriors that reads "One Skeleton Warror unit with a standard bearer..." since now they are all marked as UL, and the Unit is named basically the same... RAW would allow a "Nehekaran Skeleton Warriors" unit to field it, as per the discussed exclusion of TK-only VC-only items and rules. That would be so weird it's simply absurd)
There are no restrictions to Generals and Hierophants anymore. It's an upgrade.
We simply cannot field a regular VC or TK army anymore, because no Undead escaped the influence of this book (or Nagash for that matter. Only Wallach Harkon, but he has been dealt with ò_ó)

 

[PureSphinx]

Nightshroud > Greater Daemons, saddly D:
WoC Daemon Princes, however are much more complicated.

Anyways, the way we play it here in my group is: Undead Legions is the new official VC and TK army. It draws from both of them, all options included. The only exception to this is that some characters are no longer elegible, specifically named characters, like Heinrich Kemmler or Settra. Others, "survived" this "re-edition" and can be chosen. Others, have been upgraded, like Mannfred.

All Undead are unified and are no longer a force of Destruction, but Unaligned.
Yes we have two units that are named in the same way, being "Skeleton Warriors" and both have diferent versions of them. (which begs the question: can a TK Skeleton Warrior unit be given a magical standard, via the options listed on the VC Skeleton Warriors that reads "One Skeleton Warror unit with a standard bearer..." since now they are all marked as UL, and the Unit is named basically the same... RAW would allow a "Nehekaran Skeleton Warriors" unit to field it, as per the discussed exclusion of TK-only VC-only items and rules. That would be so weird it's simply absurd)
There are no restrictions to Generals and Hierophants anymore. It's an upgrade.
We simply cannot field a regular VC or TK army anymore, because no Undead escaped the influence of this book (or Nagash for that matter. Only Wallach Harkon, but he has been dealt with ò_ó)

As far as I know Settra is raising all TKs that weren't subverted by Arkhan to fight against Nagash. Mannfred also doesn't want to serve Nagash, so I see no reason some vampires wouldn't want to stay independent. In game context, I dont think GW intends to remove your ability to play as non-Legion undead, just as they probably aren't going to take away the Chaos armies either.

An example is that even if fluff wise there are no independent undead left, any wizard can use Undeath, meaning that the Chaos sorcerers and Bretonnian witches are using undead to fight undead, so why can't a vampire? Also, in our own fluff, story progression left Vlad and Konrad dead, as well as Manny graduating from Acolyte status, and they were still playable options, representing in essence a different period in the history of the vampires.

In short I see no reason to disregard the VC and TK books, especially since you spent money on them. If I wanna play certain characters and units that aren't in UL, I'm gonna, just like im gonna play Beastmen even though they're still 7th Ed. It's not ninth yet, don't give up on us

 

[John Rainbow]

@PureSpinx: +1

 

[najo]

Except that that doesn't follow. Ditching the rules that apply to the armies, and keeping only the rules that apply to particular units, actually leads to exactly the opposite interpretation. Because access to the faction item lists isn't granted to units specifically, it's granted generally to units within that army. If those units appear within some other army, then they are no longer 'characters in a vampire counts army' and as such the rule, as written, does not apply to them. It is, essentially, an 'army rule', of the category that Undead Legions specifically does not keep.

Same with the chariot thing. The rule may be a special rule of the skeleton chariot unit, but again, who can benefit from it is not a function of units but of armies. If the rule was 'tomb kings/princes/heralds on chariots can join this unit' then it would be as you say, but the rule is 'characters in a tomb kings army with a chariot can join this unit'. It is a rule that applies its benefits to a specific army - the tomb kings army - not to specific units within that army, so if those units appear in some other army, in this case undead legions, then that rule does not apply to them.

Again, it ends up falling under your 'army rules' category, in that it is a rule that applies to 'tomb kings armies' and not to specific tomb kings units.

I don't disagree with you on the intent, but the intent is not what is written, which is exactly what errata is for in general and exactly why errata is needed in this case.

Let me try laying it out like this to explain myself better. Here are two quotes from the book.

Nagash Book 2 p.18 'Undead Legions Army Special Rules'- The Army Special Rules From Warhammer: Vampire Counts and Warhammer: Tomb Kings are not used. Instead, units in an Undead Legion army use the Army Special Rules detailed below.

Nagash Book 2 p. 20 ' Undead Legions Army List' - An Undead Legions army can include any of the units listed below. With the exception of those units and characters detailed later (denoted by 'N' in brackets), you must use the unit profiles, points costs, equipment, options and special rules found in either Warhammer: Vamprie Counts (denoted by VC) or Warhammer: Tomb Kings (denoted by TK).


So, these two paragraphs are very clear to me. Undead Legions is its own army, with its own army special rules and it pulls units from the two army books. Those units use the special rules in their own army books. The special rules for tomb kings and princes being in chariot units are unit special rules that are not negated. Options for choosing magic items are character options in the unit profile that reference the army book internally, thus its not negated.

The only thing that effects the unit profiles widespread is the designer's note on pg. 18 that changes all references of nehekaran undead to just undead and that all effects referencing undead from both books work on units from the other army.

So, how is that vague?

 

[najo]

Nightshroud > Greater Daemons, saddly D:
WoC Daemon Princes, however are much more complicated.

Anyways, the way we play it here in my group is: Undead Legions is the new official VC and TK army. It draws from both of them, all options included. The only exception to this is that some characters are no longer elegible, specifically named characters, like Heinrich Kemmler or Settra. Others, "survived" this "re-edition" and can be chosen. Others, have been upgraded, like Mannfred.

All Undead are unified and are no longer a force of Destruction, but Unaligned.
Yes we have two units that are named in the same way, being "Skeleton Warriors" and both have diferent versions of them. (which begs the question: can a TK Skeleton Warrior unit be given a magical standard, via the options listed on the VC Skeleton Warriors that reads "One Skeleton Warror unit with a standard bearer..." since now they are all marked as UL, and the Unit is named basically the same... RAW would allow a "Nehekaran Skeleton Warriors" unit to field it, as per the discussed exclusion of TK-only VC-only items and rules. That would be so weird it's simply absurd)
There are no restrictions to Generals and Hierophants anymore. It's an upgrade.
We simply cannot field a regular VC or TK army anymore, because no Undead escaped the influence of this book (or Nagash for that matter. Only Wallach Harkon, but he has been dealt with ò_ó)

Technically the individual books are still there and there are independent factions of Vampires and Tomb Kings not under Nagash's rule. So I agree with Sphinx and John. Undead Legions is a variant of the undead united under Nagash, but there are still tomb king armies and vampire count armies out there fighting separate from him.

Also, just because VC Skeleton Warriors get a magic standard, doesn't mean the TK Skeleton Warriors do. The options from the VC units don;t hop over into the TK ones. They don;t get to use each other;s magic items etc.

Of course, you can do whatever you want for fun. But officially RAW that is not how it works.

 

[Sanguinus]

The special rules for tomb kings and princes being in chariot units are unit special rules that are not negated.

Except they are, RAW, since the specific entry states "in a Tomb Kings army". And as you said:

Undead Legions is its own army

You cannot have it both ways RAW, without an errata/FAQ.

 

[Sception]

Najo, read the army books, not just the Nagash book.

Read the actual rules, both for chariots, and for faction item access. Both blatantly apply to the armies, not to individual units. UL may have the units, but it's still a separate army, and does not have access to rules which apply to the parent armies except where it specifically says so.

Read they unit entries. They do not grant access to the faction armories, they only grant access to a certain points limit of magic items. If, say, the Tomb King entry said "up to a hundred points of magic item chosen from the core rulebook or the Tomb Kings army book" then yes, they would keep that access in Undead Legions, since it would come from the options in their unit entry.

But that is specifically NOT the case. Undead legions preserves the units options, but the unit options DON'T grant access to the faction armories, the faction armories themselves do, and they grant access not to particular units but rather to particular armies. Barring a statement saying otherwise, "On the following pages are magic items available to Tomb Kings armies. These can be taken in addition to any of the magic items listed in the Warhammer rulebok." (TK pg 62) grants access to those items only to Tomb Kings Armies, which Undead Legions armies are not. The same wording is used for the VC items. Similar wording is used for the chariot rule.

Undead Legions armies are not VC or TK armies. The UL rules grant access to units from those armies, to their unit entries, but without the forgotten note stating otherwise, the UL rules do not grant access to the faction item lists.


Again, I'm not saying your reading is wrong, it seems pretty clearly to be the intent, as far as I can tell. It is the right ruling. It is the Nagash book itself which is wrong, for forgetting to address the issue.

 

[Deamon]

Wow... peoplethe really like to argue about pointless thing. It's prettu clear the intend of to allow you to draw unit from both books with each units using rules (except army wide rules) from their respective books. People arguing otherwise just like to argue or want to abuse rules or prevent people to play a fun army.

 

[Demian]

Hmmmm nope Deamon D:

We are exposing the grave mistakes that GW are commiting by not being clear in a game that is too subject to interpretation, where lots of grey areas appear and must be addressed in order to provide balance and clarity of ruling.

We all know what the right way to play UL is. The fluff, although insignificant to the actual rules, is too a creation of the writers and the GW team and give us hints.

This community thrives in discussing alternatives, solutions, propositions and opinions about every aspect of the game, and we do so extensively, but with a clear purpose:

To shed light into this game, and specifically, to our beloved army(ies) so that we may play the way that makes us happy.



That being said, I stand by my argument about TK Skeletons being able to field a magical banner when tagged as UL, options given by their VC cousins and poor wording of their own rules. I will not and not ever field them in that way, nor will I abuse any loopholes in the rules, because I don't enjoy the game that way. I'm simply saying it could be done by RAW and RAW makes the final more substantial reasoning in rulings (albeit decreases the fun in it too )

 

[najo]

The disclaimer on pg. 20 is enough to set context for the chariot rule, the magic items and the banner. We all know the RAI are to allow the units and items in. To let kings and princes still join units etc. To not grant VC skeleton banners to TK ones. The context supports everything I've laid out. Arguing any further is just futile and is only going to create bad blood. Seriously, if people you play with are arguing these points to this level and you expect GW to look at the rules in such a skewed perspective, I would take a hard look at what you consider fun and enjoyable games with your friends. I'd prefer to enjoy my discussions with you guys too. Is this stuff really worth nick picking over?

 

[Sception]

All I'm asking is for GW to put the errata so the rules say that if that's what is meant. Yes, this is argued. You and I think the intent is obvious, but others do not. I have met multiple people online and in person who consider faction items to be army rules, because they say so, and that undead legions does not grant access, because it says so. People who say this was a deliberate balancing move to counter all the extra power and combos inherent in having the units of both armies. After some debate, the tomb kings board I frequent considers the 'no items, no chars in chariots' interpretation at least as valid, and possibly the actual intent.

I'm not arguing that your position is wrong, najo, I agree with your interpretation, at least in so far as I think that's what was meant. What I am arguing is that it is debatable, and the fact of its debatability is not debatable, it is readily evident by the fact that it has been and is being debated. Both here and elsewhere. Both on the internet and in local game community settings, including my own. The lack of FAQ on this point directly and negatively impacts my own ability to play games with the Undead Legions rules. It's gotten to the point that, even though I don't think it's what was intended, I personally feel I have to avoid taking faction items just so that I can play games instead of argue at the table, while at the same time I run across other UL players trying to put coven thrones in chariot units and pariapts on high lich priests. I'm getting close to dropping Undead Legions altogether.

An FAQ on this matter is needed. Maybe not in your community, but that doesn't mean it isn't needed for others. It is not good enough for the rules to coquettishly hint at what maybe might have been intended while so stubbornly refusing to outright say so that they end up saying something else entirely.

 

[Dakaar]

The only debate imo is between if you play RAW or RAI.

Anoyone arguing the intention is either doing so as they want to enforce the RAW without saying as much, or just want to deliberately weaken the UL list (not that its overpowered in any way, just provides more options).
Or on the other side trying to exploit the merging intentions.

Let me put it this way, if/when they rule on it do you honesetly think they will say tomb kings and princes on chariots cant join chariot units in an undead armies list, or that vampire counts characters in a UL list cant take vampire items, or tomb kings characters in the UL list cant take tomb king items?
How many army lists ONLY have access to the main rule book items after all!

Likewise do you honestly think they will rule coven thrones (or corpse carts with necros) in an UL list will be able to join chariots?

Or that they will faq because vampire counts skeleton warriors in an UL list can take magic banners so can tomb king skeleton warriors.

Honestly think about it. The intention IS clear, and the ruling if and when it comes is obvious.

 

[Sanguinus]

But that is precisely the point: in every environment, there are players who are strictly RAW and others who deliberately misinterpret rules, and it's GW's job as the game designer (let's ignore their bullshit claim about being a model company and not a games company) to make rules as clear as possible to avoid any misunderstandings. The fact that it's open to interpretation is a problem.

 

[Yorga]

But that is precisely the point: in every environment, there are players who are strictly RAW and others who deliberately misinterpret rules, and it's GW's job as the game designer (let's ignore their bullshit claim about being a model company and not a games company) to make rules as clear as possible to avoid any misunderstandings. The fact that it's open to interpretation is a problem.

It's not bullshit. THAT is how they perceive themselves. Regarding our issues with the rules...they are like Rhett Butler in Gone With the Wind. Frankly my dear...they don't give a damn.

GW's main response to rules disputes is roll a D6. Why does it take (usually) around a year for an Army Book to get an FAQ and then when it does it only addresses a mere handful of the players' concerns? Because...GW is in the business of making toys...not rules. The proof is in the pudding. They hire talented artist that make the toys. They hire illiterate hacks to write rules. I know that is insulting but sometimes a rose is a rose.

 

[Dakaar]

But that is precisely the point: in every environment, there are players who are strictly RAW and others who deliberately misinterpret rules, and it's GW's job as the game designer (let's ignore their bullshit claim about being a model company and not a games company) to make rules as clear as possible to avoid any misunderstandings. The fact that it's open to interpretation is a problem.

I agree it needs an faq so RAW matches RAI so there is only 1 way for all. My point though is its a decision at the moment to play RAW or RAI. There is no debate in what RAI is, as that is plainly obvious (see my post above). The only people trying to debate what RAI is are those using it as an excuse to enforce RAW in a RAI environment, or those trying to exploit loopholes.

 

[najo]

It's not bullshit. THAT is how they perceive themselves. Regarding our issues with the rules...they are like Rhett Butler in Gone With the Wind. Frankly my dear...they don't give a damn.

GW's main response to rules disputes is roll a D6. Why does it take (usually) around a year for an Army Book to get an FAQ and then when it does it only addresses a mere handful of the players' concerns? Because...GW is in the business of making toys...not rules. The proof is in the pudding. They hire talented artist that make the toys. They hire illiterate hacks to write rules. I know that is insulting but sometimes a rose is a rose.

I don't think that's quite what's going on. I think GW's culture goes back before competitive gaming and magic the gathering. I think they've always strived to have a casual but well built game with strategic and tactical depth. I think they do their best to write easily understood rules, in plain speak that most people understand. What they've failed to do is adapt to the magic the gathering RAW culture that pervades tournaments and hardcore players. When you come at GW RAI the rules read clearly. It's when players start looking for loop holes to exploit this happens. I agree that GW should tighten down the loop holes and they should be more deligent with FAQs. But some RAW positions are really reaching, and honestly my opinion on these items that relate to the undead legions are covered in the book good enough that players really are splitting hairs and only going to frustrate people they play with. The book clearly states to use the army special rules in undead legions and use the unit special rules in the army books. It's obvious the units are supposed to work as they work in their army books. We all know it because its stated clear enough. So when we start trying to give unit options to other units, keep tomb kings and prices out of their chariot units and keep characters from taking magic items, I have to just say "what???". Seriously, step back and look at the points raised. They don't make sense.

 

[Bullhax]

I don't think that's quite what's going on. I think GW's culture goes back before competitive gaming and magic the gathering. I think they've always strived to have a casual but well built game with strategic and tactical depth. I think they do their best to write easily understood rules, in plain speak that most people understand. What they've failed to do is adapt to the magic the gathering RAW culture that pervades tournaments and hardcore players. When you come at GW RAI the rules read clearly. It's when players start looking for loop holes to exploit this happens. I agree that GW should tighten down the loop holes and they should be more deligent with FAQs. But some RAW positions are really reaching, and honestly my opinion on these items that relate to the undead legions are covered in the book good enough that players really are splitting hairs and only going to frustrate people they play with. The book clearly states to use the army special rules in undead legions and use the unit special rules in the army books. It's obvious the units are supposed to work as they work in their army books. We all know it because its stated clear enough. So when we start trying to give unit options to other units, keep tomb kings and prices out of their chariot units and keep characters from taking magic items, I have to just say "what???". Seriously, step back and look at the points raised. They don't make sense.

I couldn't agree more! Some times GW make rules that are unclear but more often than isn't the case at all. But as you say yourself people will look for loopholes to gain the edge in a game. To be bulletproof GW would need legal document length rules which would ruin reading them, especially fast. The most resonable way to deal with it would be the FAQ's the amount of rules that is an actual cause of debate is not that large and waiting sometimes more than a year on a simple yes or no is frustrating to say the least. A couple of month after a release of a new book most of the avid players will have read and reread the rules and playtested a bit too, to catch the biggest chunk of questions, answer the ones that come up the most and be done with it. 1 line Nagaah errata is a joke..

 

[Sception]

It's clear that army rules come from undead legions and unit rules from the books, the problem is that some rules do not clearly fall into one or the other category. The option to take army book specific items is not in the 'army rules' section, so it is not clearly an army rule, but neither is it in the beastiary or army list entries for individual units, so it isn't clearly a 'unit rule', either. It is a nebulous third category of rule, and since the rule applies itself to the army generally and not to an individual unit, lumping it in with army rules is at least as natural a reading as lumping it in with unit rules.

As for Undead Legions not being overpowered - by what measure? By the most powerful armies in the game? Maybe not. But in comparison to its parent books? Undead legions is just flat out better than vampire counts, a faction that was not by any means considered a bottom tier faction, and it blows tomb kings out of the water. With faction item access, Undead Legions is so obviously better than Vamp Counts or Tomb Kings that the other two aren't even worth considering on their own. But if you take the more restrictive reading? Then undead legions is still better than either of its parent armies. So while the legions with items and characters-in-chariots aren't overpowered compared to the strongest armies, legions without such are not underpowered either compared to weak or even mid tier factions, and there is far more of a reason to consider playing non-nagash aligned undead, because they still have meaningful tricks that UL don't have access to. If UL get everything, there is only one undead faction, but if they don't get everything, then there are three, and the decision between them is far less trivial.


Tomb Kings players in particular seem more inclined to want this to be the case, because ever since the split GW has encouraged them to be narratively invested in the idea of their faction opposing other undead, especially nagash. To many tomb kings players, the Nagash events and undead legions list is equivalent to archaon conquering the empire, and a combined list folding the empire into the forces of chaos.

These players want Tomb Kings to maintain a separate identity, and that desire colors their understanding of rules that no matter what you think they are or should be are very unclear. They want to keep exclusive access to as much as they can, and the rules are unclear enough to give them a toe in the door to argue with.

I personally think their reading of intent is wish-based. But then again, so is mine. I was an old undead player. I'm a legion player now. I never approved of the TK/VC split, and desperately want their reunion to be a permanent thing going forward. I want the independent identities of these factions erased, and I can't pretend that my desire isn't coloring my own reading of intent. As such, to avoid argument, I find myself having to stick to core book items so that I don't have to waste time arguing with TK opponents.

It's annoying, and I would really like to see GW just fix it. It would take about zero effort, time, or money to do so.

 

[najo]

How I read it, and I think GW does to, is the army special rules are redone for undead legions to just remove confusion and redundancy, fix bad rules and unite the armies under one roof so to speak. So, the army special rules in first part of the TK and VC (the pages labeled as such) are ignored.

Everything else is a unit special rule, or accessed by a unit's options. The army magic items are not ignored. If they were, they would state it. Just like they state the rule for generals/heirophants dying is ignored. But GW didn't see people interpreting their rules in such a out of the box manner. They figured you'd get that the characters still choose magic items as normal. That the tomb kings on chariots join their units as normal. And that's why they say use the unit rules. Because for the majority of us, we get it. There is no cryptic banning of army options here.

GW didn't specially address these oddball issues because they didn't see them, like the majority of us. These points seem like far reaching and lacking common sense to be honest.

Honestly, if your looking for balancing you don't have to go far. Undead legions lose good special characters and the added choices are horizontal growth, controlled by points cost. Pretty much brb allies. It's not broken.

If anything, undead legions fixes Tomb kingskings. They were hurting.

 

[MorgretBonesmasher]

What is RAW and what is RAI? Not familiar with these terms. Interesting discussion.

 

[Bullhax]

What is RAW and what is RAI? Not familiar with these terms. Interesting discussion.

RAW= Rules As Written
RAI= Rules As Intended