VCs are now unstable.

[Santawraith]

Yet then u think back and picture sylvannia before vampires and go retro empire, (its cheating) its still playing undead kinda

Like I just said in another thread lets all playtest our armies and see if we can survive.

 

[Shadowfax]

The (probably unintentional) positive side effect of this is that our Ethereal units are even more unkillable in combat, since they can't be hurt by the Unstable wounds (since they are not magical attacks or effects).

 

[Aegis]

unfortunately, that is wrong, ethereal units always suffered crumble wounds, and unstable replaces the old crumble.

 

[krisbot4000]

Can anyone post the exact wording of the instability rules? stuck at work and dont have my book handy.

 

[Big D Von Carstein]

Wow! So much hate for a rule change that effects 1 ranked unit (Drakenhoff banner) and 2-3 individual model units (CC, BC, Vargulf, Lord with stupid hat). If you are throwing your BC or Vargulf into combats where you are relying of a ward or regen vs CR to keep you alive, you are doing it wrong.

Oh no, we may have to spend 2-3 months learning some new, real combined arms tactics, instead of relying on autobreak 1 trick ponies. I'm sick of the negative handwringing, whining and vitiolic abuse coming fromo some of these threads, like GW made a particular rulechange just to annoy you.

We should be looking at how to use the new ruleset to our advantage, not constantly focusing on the stuff we can no longer do quite as easily as we used too. Anyone would think we all played VCs before now simply because they were easy to use and you didn't have to think too much.

Stop crying like children, drink a cup of concrete and harden the **** up.

 

[Fodderboy]

I'm wondering if they'd make it so that we didn't crumble if we were steadfast.

 

[krisbot4000]

dont you have to roll for instability rather than just crumble?

like lose a combat by 2 roll ld check (off lords 10) say you roll a 12, you needed an 8, flubbed the roll by 4 so lose 4 guys.

Or was that just 40k Daemons..

I thought i read something about daemon players being happy about getting some sort of stubborn too

 

[Fodderboy]

It makes a huge difference, because you must divide crumble wounds equally between a unit/ridden monster and a character/characters they are walking with/riding.

This is incorrect. Crumbling damage goes to the monstrous mount first, and any leftovers go to the rider.

dont you have to roll for instability rather than just crumble?

like lose a combat by 2 roll ld check (off lords 10) say you roll a 12, you needed an 8, flubbed the roll by 4 so lose 4 guys.

Or was that just 40k Daemons..

I thought i read something about daemon players being happy about getting some sort of stubborn too

That's not the way VC or Tomb Kings work at all. However much we lose combat by, that's how many more wounds we take. This is clearly covered in the VC rulebook

 

[Originman]

The (probably unintentional) positive side effect of this is that our Ethereal units are even more unkillable in combat, since they can't be hurt by the Unstable wounds (since they are not magical attacks or effects).

Doesnt the ethereal rule say you still lose wounds for combat resolution?

Just because it doesn't say the word "unstable" doesn't mean that the rule dissapears.

No offence, but that is not a positive side, that is RAW ***** trickery that makes people not want to play games with you.

Thats like a guy saying that your black coach can't absorb dice in his magic phase (which has a RAW explaination)

As for the topic at hand: The truth is, we've been nerfed, but no so game-changingly so that people should quit. VC was pretty gross before. If you were playing VC just so that you could beat your opponent in the "choose army list" phase of the game, you're out of luck.

Jump ship if you want, but the awesome models and feel of the VC army hasn't changed due to some unfortunate new rules, so I'm still here.

Also, I apologize for the following, because I only do it for the petty satisfaction.

I told you so

All you people who jumped all over me when I said that we were going to get Unstable. Ha.

 

[krisbot4000]

*** That's not the way VC or Tomb Kings work at all. However much we lose combat by, that's how many more wounds we take. This is clearly covered in the VC rulebook *******

well i know that much, they said they were changing crumbling to instability though. and in the faq under Break tests it said "change to : Unbreakable and Unstable"

so the ONLY difference between the two for VC is instability offers no ward/regen saves?
Thats not too horrible. *shrug*

 

[Count Lasombra]

Good thing I haven't got my heart set on winning.As long as SOMEBODY gets brutally murdered I'm usually happy.Yesterday my Slann got stomped to death by a treeman-it was funny.
Besides,it's only a matter of time b4 they started rolling out new army books.IMO power shift is needed from time to time(think about the poor bastards that have been playing ogres up til now)
I figure those players who just have to win will pick whatever army is top tier at the time and then run an optimized list of that.But those players that are army loyalists are forced to adapt and take the good with the bad.
Note:I'm not casting stones or insinuating anything whatsoever,I'm only pointing out that motives vary.
On the bright side VC may not be comped as hard...prospective opponents may roll their eyes less.
And maybe...just maybe...you'll win anyway.

 

[Aegis]

its not instability like daemons, it's crumble like before except it offers no saves, if an unstable unit has an unstable character in it, you have to split the wounds as evenly as possible between the unit and any attached character/characters and their monstrous mounts (if they have one), so no it not a small problem, and stuff like this,

"""""Wow! So much hate for a rule change that effects 1 ranked unit (Drakenhoff banner) and 2-3 individual model units (CC, BC, Vargulf, Lord with stupid hat). If you are throwing your BC or Vargulf into combats where you are relying of a ward or regen vs CR to keep you alive, you are doing it wrong.

Oh no, we may have to spend 2-3 months learning some new, real combined arms tactics, instead of relying on autobreak 1 trick ponies. I'm sick of the negative handwringing, whining and vitiolic abuse coming fromo some of these threads, like GW made a particular rulechange just to annoy you.

We should be looking at how to use the new ruleset to our advantage, not constantly focusing on the stuff we can no longer do quite as easily as we used too. Anyone would think we all played VCs before now simply because they were easy to use and you didn't have to think too much.

Stop crying like children, drink a cup of concrete and harden the **** up. """"""

has no place in a discussion about how these broad changes fundamentally change every single unit in our book, not to mention very few people even know GW made an addendum to the addendum......cause they didn't tell anyone when they did it. Only that they are going to try and do it more.
Which means they are going to let Matt Ward need writing utensils and computers again (/shudder)

As for thinking of new strategies, people are going to have a hard time with that one, our core has *always* sucked stat wise compared to other core, but it was balanced out by fear. Which is now garbage and in no way worth the 3 points per model you are paying for. With every single army in the game getting exponentially better at combat, this opens up some very *very* big issues that i for one, (and i've had access rulebook for quite awhile now, so i've been thinking alot) have no idea how to offset. Nor is it purely based on the issues they opened up in our book, but the convergence of our issues, with the new ones in other books ( like the marauder blender......wtf) that are giving people pause, and generally frustrating the entire community.

 

[krisbot4000]

thanks for clarifying.

 

[Papadoc]

You guys are mistaken about the ward save being lost. You cant ward save crumble damage after you've lost combat. That has always been true. With the old 7th edition rules, the only save you can get is the regen save. With 8th thats gone now. Also, you don't lose the ward save during combat. So you can for example still get the armour save and the ward save during combat. This is how I have always played the rule and still have done quite well this way. I have never played a game where we get a ward save against crumble damage and I have played against and with some very experienced VC players. I still think the Black coach has been made much better in this edition.

 

[Aegis]

then they were play it wrong, the only save crumble negated was armor =p

Page 33 in your army book clearly states it only ignores armor saves.
( this is the part they deleted and replaced with unstable.)

 

[Papadoc]

Well then since I lost only a handful of a bunch of games playing the way I did without warding the crumble damage. I can tell you unstable will not affect us that much. Trust me I have already played against warriors of chaos and had no problem wiping that army to a man and the chaos guy is pretty good. Its plain and simple guys. Tactics will change. We will only need to just find the best ones for this edition. VC is still very good.

 

[seanabrady]

My question with the FAQ is that it seems to replace the entire break tests section in the army book with the simple rule:

"Break tests
Change to “All Undead units have the Unbreakable and
Unstable special rules.”"

What happens to the rule about multiple unit combats each Undead unit losing the wounds? Is that gone now? Or did this FAQ only change the first paragraph?

 

[Mioum]

Here's the rule in the VC book

Undead cannot be broken, but undead units beaten in combat suffer one wound for every point by wich they lose the combat. No armour saves are allowed against these wounds.

If characters are present in the unit, or if a character is riding a monster, the controling player first allocates wounds to the unit or mount (up to their current wounds), then divides the remaining wounds as equally as possible amongst any characters.

Versus the new unstable rule

Unstable
Unstable units that lose a combat suffer one extra wound for every point by wich they lose the combat, with no saves of any kind permitted against these wounds.

If an unstable unit also contain unstable characters, or is an unstable character riding an unstable monster, the controlling player first allocates wounds to the unit/monster, then divides any remaining wounds (if any) as equally as possible amongst the characters.

I don't see the confusion of having wounds allocated equally between the unit and character(s). It's as before, if you have leftover wound they are carried onto character(s).

The only change is the no ward or regen for crumble, and only the 7th ed. VC book granted saves for those. I think we can survive the "back to normal" on that regard

 

[Santawraith]

So basically crumble is back to 6th edition, that isnt bad at all. I too was misreading the whole no ward save thing. So basically all it is was clarifying a already exisiting rule and making it encompase not only vampire and tomb kings but other things aswell. It must of worked well in the undead books for them to make it a warhammer wide rules. thanks for the clarification. And out of all the confusion and fustration a new army idea was born the sylvannian empire units. my new future army of doom.

 

[Shadowfax]

Doesnt the ethereal rule say you still lose wounds for combat resolution?

Just because it doesn't say the word "unstable" doesn't mean that the rule dissapears.

No offence, but that is not a positive side, that is RAW ***** trickery that makes people not want to play games with you.

I've made a personal choice not to play it this way until it's addressed in a FAQ, because it feels overpowered, but the RaW is unmistakably clear.

Unstable makes you suffer wounds after losing combat. Ethereals can only suffer wounds from magical sources. Ergo, Ethereal units cannot suffer wounds from losing a combat.

Again, I've chosen not to warp the apparent RaI in this fashion. But anyone who decided they wanted the advantage would be entirely backed up by the rules. As usual, GW are responsible for the major oversight.

 

[Aegis]

it's not an oversight, it's people trying to nitpick the rules to death to gain an advantage, (i'm sure we all remember the dark elves trying to say the ring of hotek could make wind of undeath miscast after it was successfully cast because it hit their unit. /brain explodes)whether they are ethereal or not, they are still undead, and every undead unit in our book has unstable. The second half of the paragraph they are citing as the origination of this "problem" clearly states ethereal creatures can still be beaten by combat rez, which leads to a break test, but OMG they are undead! Unstable away.

 

[Shadowfax]

No, it's an oversight. The rules are written one way, and they should work another way.

 

[krisbot4000]

No judge with half a brain will ever let that slide.
And anyone who trys to pull crap like that should be ostracized from their gaming group.

 

[Count Darvaleth]

No judge with half a brain will ever let that slide.
And anyone who trys to pull crap like that should be ostracized from their gaming group.

Then publicly flogged in the street before being dragged by coach to the centre of town, where the local populace will be free to throw mouldy tomatoes at the slowly-rotting flesh of the guy who tried to pull off a RAAAAAWW!!!! scam.

 

[Aegis]

No, it's an oversight. The rules are written one way, and they should work another way.

I fail to see how you think this is an oversight, its spelled out in black and white. You are ethereal undead, reread that, you are both ethereal, and undead, and hence if you lose combat you must take a break test like everyone else, but because you are undead you crumble (which is now unstable) instead of taking the test, its not freaking rocket science.