Morghast ruling question

[Eyeless]

Ok I'm still a beginner in games so this might be a simple question.

Since the Morghasts have the special rule "Heralds of the Accursed One" which causes all friendly troops within 12 inches to take 1 less Wound from Combat Resolution damage and stacks, having a unit of 2 does that reduce the wounds by 2? or only by 1 since they count as 1 unit?

 

[Alabaster427]

A. it only counts as one unit, so it's only the +1.
B. "Heralds of the Accursed One" doesn't stack with itself. So even if you had two units of Harbingers, two units of Archai, or one of each, it would still only reduce Crumble by 1.

 

[Eyeless]

Ok thanks for clarifying

 

[DanteAlSimmon]

Sadly they dont stack.
But they make a BSB a worthwile investment if you have a character for it!

-2 crumble is NOT a small thing.
Had it save my games over a dozen times, and I have less than a dozen VC/UL games under my belt!

"Oh...I see your Wild riders did pretty well on that charge....oh, and if my Zombies pop you got a clean shot for an overrun into my wizard bunker?
.......well I crumble 2 less! THERE IS ONE GUY LEFT!
....oh.....oh what is that...my dragon lord has you in the flank?
and its my turn coming up? .....
Did I plan for it?
No.
Does it matter?
Not for my mood it doesn't! "

 

[Hanblack Nagash]

Can someone tell me why the rule doesnt stack with seperate units of morghasts?

 

[Alabaster427]

Can someone tell me why the rule doesnt stack with seperate units of morghasts?

It's because of the wording. It says (to the effect, don't have verbatim) "Any unit within 12" of a unit with this rule suffers one less wound from crumble." So it doesn't matter how many instances of Heralds of the Accursed the unit is in range of, they all have the same rule and the rule says they only get -1. The same thing applies for Aura of Dark Majesty, which says it stacks with ANY OTHER modifiers, so it can't stack with itself.

 

[owain_b]

Hmmm, I'm not so sure. Aura of dark majesty states units within 6" of one or more vamps, it's the 'or more' bit to my eyes that stands out as the ruling that doesn't allow it to stack.
The morghasts rule doesn't have that bit, just says if a unit is within 12" gets the -1 to crumble, so I'm not so sure it doesn't stack?

 

[Nicreap]

I am fairly certain somewhere in the BRB it states that rules with the same name do not stack unless explicitly stated, such as killing blow, if the tomb king spell cursed blades didn't explicitly state that it stacks to a 5+ on units with killing blow it would do nothing to grave guard. The same applies here, this was rules lawyered back when the book first came out, and the consensus is that RAW it doesn't stack, for the reason stated above, although they were much more thorough about it.

 

[Hanblack Nagash]

Using that logic the mortis engines wouldnt stack but they do.

But because it doesnt say one or more im more inclined to say it stacks

 

[Nicreap]

Except the Mortis engine has an FAQ that explicitly states the effect of multiple mortis engines is cumulative, the Morghast does not.

Page 66 – Special Rules, What Special Rules Does It Have. Change “[...]the effects of multiple special rules[...]” to “[...] the effects of different special rules[...]”Add “However, unless otherwise stated, a model gains no additional benefit from having the same special rule multiple times.” to the end of the first paragraph.

From the BRB FAQ. So unless they release an FAQ for endtimes and state the Morghast aura stacks, having one or 50 units of morghasts only grants -1 to crumble.

 

[Adam_Barrow]

It might be worth mentioning, even if I don't agree with it, that the FAQ there may not explicitly apply. A unit of Zombies isn't benefiting from a special rule it has more than once because it doesn't have that special rule in the first place. They're benefiting from another unit's special rule.

 

[The Sun King]

In these cases it mostly comes down to what player you are. You can argue that the Morghasts doesn't confer a special rule on the other units and therefore the aura stacks... BUT that is trying to make our rules better by reading them in a specific way. I find that "better safe than sorry" is the way to go here. Unless we get a clear FAQ use the rules' interpretation that benefit you the least, that way you don't have to throw out all your medals like Lance Armstrong