Debate on Walking Death

[vonkrolok]

We are talking about the vampire power.
In order to have a better discussion I'm gonna past here what is stated in the VC book:

The presence of one or more vampires with this power in a combat adds +1 to their side's combat resolution

Different languages have issued different translations, all of which have possible different interpretation. Now the point really is whether you can add +1 to the combat resolution if:

-your vampire is in combat
-your vampire is attached to a unit in combat
-to whatever VC unit is in combat

The power cost 25 pts and if you stop and think a Warbanner costs 25 pts and if one is careful it can grant +1 CR to whatever combat you-re dealing with within 12" radius (24" diameter, which means the whole of the gaming area in a head-to-head session).

 

[mindninja]

I'm almost positive that walking death only confers your side +1 to combat resolution if he's involved in a combat. Even if you were to have 2 vampires in the same combat with walking death, you would only receive a maximum of +1 to combat resolution from that power.

As for war banner, I'm pretty sure it only gives a +1 to combat resolution to the unit carrying it.

Where are these rules about the bonus carrying over to units within 12"?

 

[TMS]

Your first presented option is the one I roll with. If the Vampire with the power is involved in a close combat, he will add a further +1 to his side's combat resolution, regardless of if he's on his own or within another unit.

 

[bored1]

is the question whether the vamp actually has to be fighting, or if he's not actually attacking?

 

[Forge]

I dont see how it could go any other way.

The "Presence" so he has to be there

"in a combat" so he has to be in combat which by rulebook definition is him or his unit is in combat

"adds +1 to THEIR sides combat resolution"

 

[bored1]

I agree...just unsure what the actual question is.

 

[vonkrolok]

"in a combat" so he has to be in combat which by rulebook definition is him or his unit is in combat

This is the kinda thing that gets people in trouble with the law, "in a combat" doesn't mean "in combat". It's a completely different thing and since the English is the issuing language, we cannot use other languages to explain it 'cuz any other language is as good as any (I'm referring to German that specifies "the combat the vampire is involved in" and Italian that mostly translates the English version word for word).

To those who asked where the question is:

the +1 is to be considered army-wise or on the unit the vampire with this power is attached to (being it just himself)?

Further on the question:

Does that stack up? more vampires with this power in the same unit add on their bonuses?

"one or more vampires with this power add +1[...]" doesn't exactly mean that the power is addictive, just says +1, not +1 for each vampire with this power.
Specification for in-house-rules is in order unless somebody actually emailed the question straight to GW, because, as stated, this power can be everything and nothing at the same time and all for the cost of a BSB.

 

[midean]

I know old FAQ's for 7th don't hold up anymore but I do believe this was asked and answered then....Only get +1 for any combat that the vamp is in. No 12" presence, no army wide +1, and only +1 no matter how many vamps in the unit that may have said power. Now I havn't seen anything in the new vampire FAQ and the BRB that would in anyway shape or form change the situation. He's a Vampire with his own little +1 banner people.....:slapface:

 

[vonkrolok]

I'm sorry midean, but both old VC FAQ, new VC FAQ and BRB FAQ (I have them all) mention nothing of the sort, if the question was asked, it's sure as death it was kept private... so question stands considering the care they put to write rules so people possibility to glitch exploitation is limited to a minimum. Most importantly: of all the things they thought they had to write a FAQ for, this is the only one that left out despite the evident poor way it was phrased.


EDIT: and I just read this:

Undead units that are within 12" of a BSB suffer 1 less wound [...]

So comes again to mind: one spends 25 points to turn a hero into a BSB and that applies on a 12" radius, but a vampire power that works the same and costs the same should work on a single unit? what is it? the vampire is the town looser?

 

[_Revan_]

I'm not seeing where the War Banner provides its extra +1 combat resolution bonus within a 12" radius, just that "a unit with this banner adds +1 to combat resolution".

The special rule for suffering one less wound is from crumbling, it is not a radial combat resolution bonus. It does not help you win combat...only lose less

Yes, while the Battle Standard has some more attractive perks to it, there are also more negatives as opposed to Walking Death. The Battle Standard should be magical since many provide a powerful boon to the army and seeing how you can only have one, it would be a waste otherwise. That said, this disallows your character from taking other items as well, typically making that Hero more vulnerable.

So while there are benefits outside of combat, you have more flexibility using Walking Death (or hey, just use both ).

Honestly, the wording for Walking Death seems very clear that as long as there are one ore more (1+) Vampires with Walking Death in (a) combat, your side recieves a +1 bonus to resolution. I don't see wherethere would be any distinction between "in" and "in a" in this circumstance since you can only be present in a single combat at a given time (even if there are several units). I believe that the power would use "on the battlefield" if it were to affect the whole army.

While I do think this is a useful supportive power, I would like to add that overall effectiveness does not reflected accurately in points 100% of the time, just as rules are not always guaranteed to be set based on how powerful (or not) they are.

I hope that all make sense and I apologize for being so wordy .

 

[vonkrolok]

Not a problem for the wordy... I'm Italian .

I'm gonna paste it all out because the rule implies in CR as well:

Undead units that are within 12" of their battle standard suffer one less wound than they normally would when defeated in combat (this is the CR part) or because suffering casualties because of the death of the general.

The fact that the vast majority of the players include a magic std is pretty much irrelevant because you still pay those 25 pts and it still works that way because nowhere it's written that the BSB looses his ability to give +1CR within 12" if he picks a magic std of any kind. So to me the pros outnumber the cons: if you avoid using a magic std you can have whatever magic item you wish up to 50 pts to make your BSB more survivable and have a bonus anyway (armies that follow the BRB rule, for instance, won't have the 12" rule).

On the wording:

saying "in combat" is a specification, meaning that the Vampire is in combat

saying "in a combat" is a generalization, it may mean that the vampire is in combat or that somebody else is in combat but the bonus still applies

Besides, I stopped believing that GW was making balanced games once I had 3 different edition VC army books as a comparison... the way VC have been smacked down has no equal in any other army...

 

[sinistral]

"nowhere it's written that the BSB looses his ability to give +1CR within 12" if he picks a magic std of any kind."
The Battle Standard will only give +1 CR if it is involved in the particular combat. The VC rule that make us loose one less wound if within 12" of the Battle Standard does not affect the CR of the combat, it only affect the result of the CR.

 

[bored1]

vonkrolok:

I'm thoroughly confused. Are you implying that reducing the number of models that crumbles if undead lose combat is the same as gaining +1 combat resolution? Because that is completely incorrect. He doesn't give +1 CR to units within 12". He reduces the crumble rate by one. An example.

A unit of 20 skeletons with just a standard charges into combat with some high elf spearmen with full command, their ranks are equal. The high elves manage to kill 5 of the skeletons, but somehow the skeletons manage to do 4 back. So the high elves get +8 CR (2 ranks + 1 standard + 5 kills). The skeletons get +8 as well (2 ranks + 1 standard + 4 kills + charging). But the high elves get a musician, and so win the combat by 1. Luckily for the skeletons, the BSB is within 12", and they don't lose a further model. If the BSB was in the unit, or if he had a 12" radius on his +1 bonus, then the skeletons would actually win the combat....a world of difference.

Now, back to Walking Death:

The presence of one or more Vampires with this power in a combat adds +1 to their side's combat resolution.

Breaking down this sentence:

"The presence of one or more Vampires" and the "their" indicates that number does not matter (as the pronoun is plural). So no matter how many vamps are in the combat, there will only be a single +1.

"Presence" and "in a combat" and "their side's" is trickier. I don't believe these are defined terms in 8th edition, so we are left to interpret the English. Presence is a broad term, and I would say that based on previous GW faqs and rulings regarding wording that is more specific, it simply means that the vampire is there, and doesn't actually have to be fighting. The "in a combat" and "their side's" is also tricky. I could see the argument that says if the vampire is in combat, and 3 other units are in combat in other spots on the board, why wouldn't you add +1 to each combat that "their side". However, if you read p 52, and other sections of the BRB, repeated mention is made of "each side" and "which side", and it consistently refers to a singular combat, not every combat on the board at once. Hence, I think you can generalize that "in a combat" and "their side's" means a specific combat and specific combat resolution for that combat.

 

[Zanthor]

I believe that it should be played that Walking Death adds ONLY to the combat that the vampire is involved in. It doesn't specifically state that the model has to be in BtB. In other words, he works much like a 3rd banner (regimental, BSB, and then Walking Death).

 

[Forge]

I believe that it should be played that Walking Death adds ONLY to the combat that the vampire is involved in. It doesn't specifically state that the model has to be in BtB. In other words, he works much like a 3rd banner (regimental, BSB, and then Walking Death).

and warbanner if youd like! a static +3 on a BSB

 

[vonkrolok]

That's right, it isn't +1 to CR, but if you like it is +1 to CR if you loose (which equals to one less wound), my bad.

Still you see bored1 how there IS a constant misunderstanding, for some other people the +1 is addictive but limited to the unit the vampires are in. Another aspect is the way the BRB speaks: it generally doesn't involve more than one combat at a time so there is no questioning. On the other hand, an army book is all about whatever combat goes on on the table. So in a way, specification should be in order on the army book, but not on the BRB. Getting on the sheer English: 'their' is used in English for both the plural or the neutral, especially in British English (language in which the BRB is written). Now if we let out the army-wise bonus idea and we consider applying only once per combat phase per vampire, if the generalization implies that the vampire doesn't have to be physically fighting, to which combat can you apply it? Vampire's choice?

I think we better forward this debate to GW because we are highly unlikely to come up with something since we didn't write the rules...

 

[Lord Fear]

I think it's just your unfamiliarity with the language, vonk. All native English speakers will tell you the same thing: that it means that if one or more Vampires is in a combat and has this power, then their side receives +1CR.

That's all there is to it, and the existence of standard bearers, war banner, battle standards or anything else has little to do with the matter.

 

[bored1]

I'm with Lord Fear on this...think it's the language barrier.

Perhaps it's just lingual context, but it is very clear to me, and just about everyone I've ever played with, that GW breaks their rules down from phase to specific iteration. Meaning that they delineate an entire phase, but break each phase down into specific subsections that are to be applied to each unit/model that is acting in that phase. So the rules encapsulate that specific phase for that specific unit/model.

That was probably highly unclear, but it's difficult for me to articulate beyond just saying that the rules are clearly spelled out on a combat by combat basis, and anything army-wide is specifically stated as being such.

 

[vonkrolok]

Language barriers do exist, but a poor phrasing that gives room to interpretation where there should be none is a completely different bowl of wax.

A is a non case specific article, introduces something aspecific
THE is a case specific article that introduces something specific

what I can give you aside of any other fancy linguistic explanation, is a cultural argument:
in Italy there is an unwritten law that states clearly

You should ALWAYS and AT ALL COSTS find way around laws of any kind at your, and your only, benefit

you do realize that this makes Italians exceptional beta testers for rules in games: if there is room for interpretation... we WILL find it... and do consider that we use army books in Italian... not like when I started back in the days of the second edition when we just had English versions and a lot of courage to begin with... these kids can't even read the back of a can of coke if there is no Italian on it

For instance, another one that makes me laugh is the description of the cadaverous curiass:

Killing blows and poisoned attacks have no additional effects on the wearer

Does that mean that Killing blows and poisoned attacks have additional effects other then kill on 6 to wound and automatic wound on 6 to hit? and does that mean that a vampire still suffers from KB and PA normal effects? those just stated are the KB and PA NORMAL effects... not additional :slapface:... this isn't linguistic unfamiliarity

 

[Aramoro]

There is not room for interpretation in Walking Death. It tells you exactly what it does.

The presence of one or more vampires with this power in a combat adds +1 to their side's combat resolution

Their side is the side of the specific combat the vampire is on. 'Their side's' Is possessive of the Vampire or Vampires with this power. If it was going to apply to anything else it would need to refer to your army or the Vampires army.

Aramoro

 

[vonkrolok]

Makes me think of another thing that is deadly clear with no room for interpretation but people are arguing nonetheless...

Side is non-specific term, it's either Unit, Army or Self. OR in boolean means that you just need one statement to be true to make the whole thing true

 

[Lord Fear]

The thing you're missing is context. It is patently obvious that "side" means the side that the vampire is fighting on in that particular combat. It does say this, you know.

 

[vonkrolok]

The thing you're missing is context. It is patently obvious that "side" means the side that the vampire is fighting on in that particular combat. It does say this, you know.

Yeah (meaning: I see where you come from), but by the same token why not saying Unit if they're synonym in this specific case: lets no room to interpretation and doesn't change the meaning of the whole thing. People at GW should be concerned about this thing...

 

[Lord Fear]

They can't say "unit" because combats involve more than one unit, and frequently more than unit per side. If it said per unit, then each unit which had a Vampire with Walking Death would gain +1CR, and they don't want that. Which is why they don't say it!

Liek I say, this is a language thing. Your confusion over the term "unit" demonstrates that completely. "Side" means ALL units across the combat that you are resolving. It's okay that your English isn't 100% (nor is mine ), but when you have native English speakers telling you what the rules say and what they mean, while you can't distinguish between what a "unit" and a "side" is, you really should consider that maybe we know what this stuff is talking about better than you do

 

[vonkrolok]

It does actually mean that: for each unit the combat is in with that power you get +1CR and only that since it's not comulative. In multiple combats you get bonuses only on a "best" case, meaning ranks count for the biggest unit, STD counts 1 only as well as flank and rear charges, so that is covered in the multiple combats part.
The problem of the phrasing here is that I could count the +1CR from the power depending on the situation:
assume you have 2 different combats going on, one is winning and one is loosing, vampire is on the winning side unit and you decide to allocate the +1CR to the loosing unit so you loose one less model or even make a draw out of it if that's the case.

Liek I say, this is a language thing. Your confusion over the term "unit" demonstrates that completely. "Side" means ALL units across the combat that you are resolving. It's okay that your English isn't 100% (nor is mine wink ), but when you have native English speakers telling you what the rules say and what they mean, while you can't distinguish between what a "unit" and a "side" is, you really should consider that maybe we know what this stuff is talking about better than you do wink

Speaking of phrasing... I'm gonna take it with a constructive spirit.