First impressions of the Undead Legion

[HERO]

Well, Pg. 462 in the Nagash rules has a pretty convincing argument if you guys are willing to whip out Undead Legions on your friends.

"Last but far from least, we have included a brand new army list that you can use for combined Undead armies of Sylvanian (Vampire Counts) and Nehekharan (Tomb Kings) troops. It allows you to take units from the Vampire Counts and Tomb Kings army books together as a single force. blah blah blah.. Along with all of the other sections of this book, it is intended for both with the scenarios presented herein, AND in any other games of Warhammer you would like to use it for."

Looks pretty clear to me :X

 

[Kingside_Bishop]

I'm just excited to be able to legally add some skeleton archers and screaming skull trebuchet for fluff, which before I was just going to do illegally. Other than that it doesn't change a thing for me. I can't see too many people going out and building a Nagash army for an army list that probably won't be around next edition.

But what if this is a precursor to them rejoining the codexes? I doubt it, but you never know...

Well, Pg. 462 in the Nagash rules has a pretty convincing argument if you guys are willing to whip out Undead Legions on your friends.

"Last but far from least, we have included a brand new army list that you can use for combined Undead armies of Sylvanian (Vampire Counts) and Nehekharan (Tomb Kings) troops. It allows you to take units from the Vampire Counts and Tomb Kings army books together as a single force. blah blah blah.. Along with all of the other sections of this book, it is intended for both with the scenarios presented herein, AND in any other games of Warhammer you would like to use it for."

Looks pretty clear to me :X

I guess to bring it down to the very analytical level, in my opinion the problem arises in their vague use of the word "you". If they mean I as an individual player can use the rules if I like, then I could show up to a casual game with them in play. But if they mean "you" in the collective sense, as in me and my opponent or us as a gaming community, then I would still need the OK of my opponent. Since this is the safer route, I think we should all do this (and we probably will).

In essence my gut feeling is that the rules as written impart no clearly defined right to use these rules without the permission of the player you're playing with, but the real problem is that they could also be interpreted the other way with literally just as much legitimacy.

Of course it's all a moot point anyway. Most or all of us are going to ask before using End Times anyway, and tournament organisers will make it clear whether they're in play or not. My guess is it will be a no.

 

[HERO]

You in this case means both you and your opponent. Since it takes 2 people to play Warhammer, regardless of what you're actually playing, both parties will have to agree.

 

[Von Calyptra]

I definitely wouldn't want to feel like I was forcing the new list/rules on my opponent. I'm content to ask for permission while this is debated just to make sure everybody's having a good time. Also, I'm a bit worried about how powerful the Undead Legion might turn out to be.

Hero, I thought your article on Undead Legion magic phase shenanigans was extremely well-written. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[Kingside_Bishop]

Yeah me too, very interesting read... Movement shenanigans abound!

 

[Sception]

Oh, I see it. So, that says "Characters in a Tomb Kings army..." So it's intended for TK characters, and wouldn't apply to VC characters.

My will be done is intended for tomb kings armies as well. If thats what you hinge your interpretation on, then kings and princes on regular chariots cannot join units of chariots in undead legions armies, either, because they are no longer characters in a tomb kings army.

what you seem to want is a general rule only allowing characters from one book to join units of the same book within an undead legions army. Such might not be a bad house rule, but thats what it would be.

again, I see no way to hinge a 'coven thrones cannot join chariot units' interpretation on the skeleton chariot rules themselves that would not also stop the rule from working for kings and princes in undead legion armies. And, honestly, is it any more abusive, or any less intended, than tomb kings or necrotects buffing grave guard, or undead marching and then moving again with the lore of nehek signature spell, or mortis engines buffing nectrotect regen saves on constructs, or any of the other 'rule from one undead army buffing unit from the other' results of mixed lists?

 

[spineyrequiem]

You could actually have a ruling along the lines of 'only characters on skeleton chariots may join units of skeleton chariots'. It's not so much that it's abusive as that it doesn't quite fit, coven throne and mortis engine are clearly standalone things whereas the skeleton chariots work as a unit. Then again, things not quite fitting together without conversion has never stopped GW...

 

[Infernal Skull]

My will be done is intended for tomb kings armies as well. If thats what you hinge your interpretation on, then kings and princes on regular chariots cannot join units of chariots in undead legions armies, either, because they are no longer characters in a tomb kings army.

what you seem to want is a general rule only allowing characters from one book to join units of the same book within an undead legions army. Such might not be a bad house rule, but thats what it would be.

again, I see no way to hinge a 'coven thrones cannot join chariot units' interpretation on the skeleton chariot rules themselves that would not also stop the rule from working for kings and princes in undead legion armies. And, honestly, is it any more abusive, or any less intended, than tomb kings or necrotects buffing grave guard, or undead marching and then moving again with the lore of nehek signature spell, or mortis engines buffing nectrotect regen saves on constructs, or any of the other 'rule from one undead army buffing unit from the other' results of mixed lists?

There's nothing stopping a Tomb Prince on foot from joining a unit of Grave Guard. What I'm referring to is the basic BRB rules that prevent characters from joining chariot units and characters with chariot mounts from joining any units.

In order for a character with a chariot mount to join a unit, either the chariot unit needs a rule that allows them to be joined or the character needs a rule that allows them to join units. In this case the rule is on the chariots and allows TK characters to join them. (I was actually thinking the same thing, though- that they are no longer "characters in a Tomb Kings army." Ugh. I'd argue that it still applies because the Undead Legions list says you use the special rules in each book (TK in this case) for the units. It only gets dicey when you start mixing units from each book.)

Tomb Kings conferring their WS to VC units would not be a matter of whether or not they can join them, it's a matter of what their rule says that they buff. If it says something like "Tomb Kings and Princes confer their WS to any units they join" then it's all good. If it specifically calls out which units get the buff, then only those units get the buff, even in the combined list. If it says "Nehekaran Undead" get the buff, then that would apply to VC units as well, because the Undead Legion rules make an allowance that the two rules for undead are simply Undead, and completely interchangeable.

 

[Dracan]

As to the whole is this a legit list. Well i don't know guys, how many times do GW have to say "any game" before the community accepts they mean any game?

 

[Infernal Skull]

I'm just excited to be able to legally add some skeleton archers and screaming skull trebuchet for fluff, which before I was just going to do illegally. Other than that it doesn't change a thing for me. I can't see too many people going out and building a Nagash army for an army list that probably won't be around next edition.

But what if this is a precursor to them rejoining the codexes? I doubt it, but you never know...

I guess to bring it down to the very analytical level, in my opinion the problem arises in their vague use of the word "you". If they mean I as an individual player can use the rules if I like, then I could show up to a casual game with them in play. But if they mean "you" in the collective sense, as in me and my opponent or us as a gaming community, then I would still need the OK of my opponent. Since this is the safer route, I think we should all do this (and we probably will).

In essence my gut feeling is that the rules as written impart no clearly defined right to use these rules without the permission of the player you're playing with, but the real problem is that they could also be interpreted the other way with literally just as much legitimacy.

Of course it's all a moot point anyway. Most or all of us are going to ask before using End Times anyway, and tournament organisers will make it clear whether they're in play or not. My guess is it will be a no.

That's not really a valid argument. By that logic, any reference of "you" in an army book or the BRB would be an "optional" rule. Like under Vampiric Powers: "...different Vampires in the same army can have the same powers if you wish." I guess I need my opponent's permission to put Red Fury on more than one character, eh?

And for the record, the Lore of Undeath doesn't say "you" it says in bold "Any Wizard can choose to generate spells from the Lore of Undeath." The Choosing an Army rules also say "all armies use these rules for choosing an army," not "you can use these rules..."

Now, sure, Warhammer is a game of agreements at its core. People can choose to play or not play whoever or whatever they wish. And TOs and gaming groups can house rule things all the time. But denying an Empire player from using the Lore of Undeath for one of his Wizards is just as valid as saying he can't use Lore of Beasts. And forbidding the characters in Warhammer: Nagash is as valid as not allowing a player to use Heinrich Kemmler. There was a time when Special characters were only allowed with your opponent's consent, but those days are long gone. Everything that comes out now is "for official use" when playing with our toys.

 

[Kingside_Bishop]

...but those days are long gone. Everything that comes out now is "for official use" when playing with our toys.

That's a good point. In the last few years we've seen so many supplements in 40k and Fantasy expanding our rules for unit selection that are legal (allies, battle scrolls, etc.) that it would be logical to assume that this is fully legal, too.

Besides, it's hard to argue with Dracan's highlighting lol! I guess I stand convinced.

 

[Sception]

Warhound Titans are officially legal in 1,000 point games of warhammer 40k as well. Doesn't mean that they're going to be generally accepted for pick up games without prior discussion, let alone tournament games. This is not an argument that is going to be resolved by quoting rule books at your opponent, and the permissions in the Nagash Book are significantly less clear than those allowing lords of war in games of 40k, since they also equally imply that all games are end times games now, and that certainly doesn't seem to be the case for casual pick up games, at least not in my area.

This is an issue that will only be resolved in a case by case, in person basis with the people you actually game with. It is pointless to argue it over the internet with strangers.

 

[Dracan]

This is sadly very true, the thing that frustrate me is most people have made up their mind before actually even seeing the rules. having rule based arguments against it when in fact the rules are for it is just silly.

 

[Infernal Skull]

Agreed. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm currently running a campaign, and I did ask the participants whether or not they wanted to add the new rules in Nagash. It's mostly moot because none of us are playing undead (I'm using Skaven) and I don't think the others are going to drop a couple hundred bucks on a book and an undead regiment. But if they wanted to use the 50% lords & heroes, or the Empire player wanted to field Valten, I'd be cool with it. (We otherwise don't have any artificial restrictions on the games & armies.)

It's an odd situation because we began before these rules dropped. If we were starting a new campaign now, we'd use it all. We can't pick and choose which armies are and aren't allowed. If that were the case, I'd disallow High Elves because I don't like them and I'd use the argument that the words "for official use" don't appear anywhere in their army book.

(You know, I just noticed that the Nagash book is a different size than the other army books. So maybe it's not official after all.)

 

[Sception]

I'll be playing undead legions myself (and modeling my undead as such - first step was ordering TK shields for my VC skeletons), but I'll also be making sure that I stick mostly to VC units, and have a variant pure VC list on hand to play in case an opponent isn't cool with playing against an Undead Legion army.

Of course, my UL list will be pretty friendly and casual, while the vamp list will be the nastiest blender lord in black knight bus netlist I can put together, just to encourage my opponents to give the Legions a shot, but, you know, the choice is theirs, I'm not forcing their hand or anything.

 

[najo]

I find that those against the new stuff in my local scene seem to be prejudging and trying to find some text to support their position of no, instead of truly looking at the rules and judging them as balanced or not.

Also, the reaction to 50% lords and heroes is OP! But they don't think through how rules for regiments, step up, steadfast and hordes affects combat.

Ironically, everyone is like GW is trying to just get people to buy expensive models. Then they all admit that the game entry point is to high in models and money and these new rules let players play with fewer models and less money. ...lol

GW might be on the right path. At first I felt like these rules should just have been 50% characters period. Until a discussion with a friend showed me how now a new player can buy a couple cool characters and a minimum of core and get playing. That's definaterly easier on the new player. And I can't see how more characters is going to throw the game completing out of whack. Regiments are still where it's at. Reports so far have Nagash dying half way through games.

 

[spineyrequiem]

Someone asked about My Will Be Done. Reading from my book, it says 'Any unit of Nehekharan Undead (so any undead in Undead Legions) accompanied by a model with this rule uses the character's Weapon Skill in place of its own (use the highest if the unit is joined by several characters with this rule). If all characters with the My Will Be Done rule in the unit are killed, the unit immediately reverts to using its own weapon skill. This special rule has no effect on mounts or characters'

'And the Tomb Kings Rode To War' says 'Characters in a tomb kings army (so any characters now) that have a chariot (including Settra the Imperishablee's Chariot of the Gods) can join a unit of skeleton chariots. They can remain with the unit even if their mount is destroyed but, if they subsequently leave the unit whilst on foot, they will not be able to rejoin it, or join another unit ofSkeleton Chariots.'

So, RAW, it looks like a coven throne/mortis engine could join, but only if being ridden by a character.

 

[Sanguinus]

Tomb Kings are still a separate army, so that rule does not confer to VC in an UL army. Amusingly, it won't apply to TK models in a UL army either.

 

[Infernal Skull]

That's awesome about the "My will be done." I think the "Rode to war" rule still only applies to the TK characters, as a vampire on a coven throne won't be a character in a TK army, he'll be in a Undead Legions army.

 

[Fel'qara]

Well if someone said to me i can't attach my TK to my chariot unit in a UL list, i'd be the one refusing to play, not the other way around =p

 

[Infernal Skull]

I'm sure the intention is for TK characters to still be able to join their own units, but I could see a rationale for dropping that to balance out the other shenanigans of the combined list.

Although, the Undead Legions army list still identifies units and characters as TK or VC (or N in the case of the new units in the Nagash book) and says that they still use their own special rules. Only the Army Rules are ignored and replaced with the Army rules in the UL list. Since "Rode to war" is a unit special rule, it still applies, and the characters with a "TK" would be able to use it. That would be my understanding.

 

[Sanguinus]

The rule specifies characters in a TK army, UL is a separate army, so RAW it's not allowed. I'm inclined to agree that it's probably an oversight (with the original intention being not to allow the TK allies to join units of the main force), and I can understand not liking it, but it seems like a small sacrifice to pay for gaining the ability to march and not suffer crumble.

 

[Infernal Skull]

Also, the reaction to 50% lords and heroes is OP! But they don't think through how rules for regiments, step up, steadfast and hordes affects combat.

I know, right? If anyone thinks they're one upping me by taking an army that's half characters, I'll just swamp them with combat resolution and laugh when they consistently roll less than 7 for their power dice and fail to channel any extra dice for their 4 wizards!

Ironically, everyone is like GW is trying to just get people to buy expensive models. Then they all admit that the game entry point is to high in models and money and these new rules let players play with fewer models and less money. ...lol

I never understood that logic. Or complaining about trying to get you to use larger units. I don't know about anyone else, but I play miniatures games because I enjoy collecting, painting, and playing with miniatures. So why complain about GW giving me an opportunity to do that more? Even in 6th edition, when rank bonus was 4 wide, I still took 30-man units 5 or 6 wide.

GW might be on the right path. At first I felt like these rules should just have been 50% characters period. Until a discussion with a friend showed me how now a new player can buy a couple cool characters and a minimum of core and get playing. That's definaterly easier on the new player. And I can't see how more characters is going to throw the game completing out of whack. Regiments are still where it's at. Reports so far have Nagash dying half way through games.

But is that really a good way to start playing? Losing every game because you have too many characters? I mean, sure, you can get to 2000 points faster and start playing "properly-sized" games, but I don't think 1000 points of units and 1000 points of characters is a competitive army. (And isn't that what wargaming is all about with the kids these days?) :tongue:

And yeah, I'm totally dreading Nagash getting cannonballed off the table by turn 3. Anyone who thinks he's broken doesn't play Empire enough.

 

[najo]

I'm sure the intention is for TK characters to still be able to join their own units, but I could see a rationale for dropping that to balance out the other shenanigans of the combined list.

Although, the Undead Legions army list still identifies units and characters as TK or VC (or N in the case of the new units in the Nagash book) and says that they still use their own special rules. Only the Army Rules are ignored and replaced with the Army rules in the UL list. Since "Rode to war" is a unit special rule, it still applies, and the characters with a "TK" would be able to use it. That would be my understanding.

This right here is how I would call it. Also, the TK, VC & N listed next to the unit entries clearly distinguishes which characters are tomb kings.

 

[najo]

I know, right? If anyone thinks they're one upping me by taking an army that's half characters, I'll just swamp them with combat resolution and laugh when they consistently roll less than 7 for their power dice and fail to channel any extra dice for their 4 wizards!



I never understood that logic. Or complaining about trying to get you to use larger units. I don't know about anyone else, but I play miniatures games because I enjoy collecting, painting, and playing with miniatures. So why complain about GW giving me an opportunity to do that more? Even in 6th edition, when rank bonus was 4 wide, I still took 30-man units 5 or 6 wide.



But is that really a good way to start playing? Losing every game because you have too many characters? I mean, sure, you can get to 2000 points faster and start playing "properly-sized" games, but I don't think 1000 points of units and 1000 points of characters is a competitive army. (And isn't that what wargaming is all about with the kids these days?) :tongue:

And yeah, I'm totally dreading Nagash getting cannonballed off the table by turn 3. Anyone who thinks he's broken doesn't play Empire enough.

I've always played with larger regiments too. Even back in the early 4-5th days like you. I remember people playing with hero hammer armies and I'd beast them with regiments with large static combat results.

Thing is about 9th making smaller armies easier. I think it'll be good and here is why. Those players won't be playing in a vacuum. They will get attracted to cool characters and easy to start armies, then get playing with veterans and then will grow their armies organically following what they learn as they play