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

[Infernal Skull]

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?

^ This, exactly.

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.

But it does specifically say so: "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)."

That means, you use the options in the unit profile, which allows you to take magic items from your army book's magic items list, or the BRB. So a unit in the Undead Legions list that's denoted by (VC), and has the option to take magic items, would get them from the relevant army book, in this case Warhammer: Vampie Counts (or the BRB), as normal.

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.

Selecting magic items from your own army book isn't a "special rule" or an "army rule" it's an option. And the options, as found in a unit profile in Warhammer: Vampire Counts, allow you to take magic items available to Vampire Counts armies. And (since this apparently can't be stated enough) the Nagash book clearly says you must use the options for the units, as found in TK or VC books.

One might think a simple fix would be a paragraph similar to the one about combining the two Undead rules– Change all rule text references of "Vampire Counts" or "Tomb Kings" to "Undead Legion." But that would create unwanted combinations (like ALL the magic items being available to either side, any chariot-riding characters joining TK chariots), which is probably why they didn't do it, and left the unit options as they appear in their own book.

And if everyone really wants to argue semantics– The combining of Nehekaran Undead and regular Undead is not a rule. It's a designer's note. So technically, it's not a Rule As Written and therefore shouldn't apply. It's a note explaining Rules as Intended. Instances like that is why I always find the arguments over RAW vs. RAI laughable, because the intent is important to understand.

That being said, I stand by my argument about TK Skeletons being able to field a magical banner when tagged as UL

But there are no Skeleton Warriors units tagged as (UL). All units in the Undead Legions Army List are tagged as (N), (TK), or (VC). The Core section lists two separate Skeleton Warriors entries:
Skeleton Warriors (VC) and
Skeleton Warriors (TK)

The TK Skeleton Warriors uses the options as found the WH:TK book, and the VC Skeleton Warriors use the options as found the WH:VC book. The VC skeletons have the option for a magic banner and the TK skeletons don't. Plain and simple.

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.

Then that kind of invalidates your opinion in the matter, doesn't it? I mean if you're admittedly misinterpreting the book for your own desire. And what is that exactly– that Undead Legion only has common BRB magic items and Coven Thrones can join TK Chariot units? Like Dakaar says, that's not likely to happen.

 

[najo]

This thread has made something very clear for me. I've played warhammer for over 25 years now. For all the flack GW gets about their rules, they have been maintaining a consistent and even improving standards over the years. Warhammer is a RAI game. Every time someone starts down that RAW path, it's usually 9/10 times to exploit the game some how. Now, I'm not saying GW doesn't make mistakes. But ironically, we can't often seem to agree what those mistake are. Some of their most controversial designers (Andy Chambers, Gav Thorpe, Robin Cruddace & Mat Ward) have also pushed their respective games/armies boundaries. People either absolutely love or hate their work and it is not consistent which work they consider their good or bad. So, those guys then are fairly bold risk takers that have left their marks on the two flagship games. But back to my point, I've known people who've worked for games workshop. They always have said the most obvious and common sense reading of the rules is 99% of the time the correct meaning. Whenever I've taking that approach to a rules dispute, my interpretation has been upheld in the FAQ. It's when I've been exploitive (whether intentional or not) that I've been wrong. GW doesn't want you to find loopholes and argue over nit-picky bits. They want you to enjoy a fun time with your friends pushing their toy soldiers around on a board. From the very beginnings, they've always been about the spirit of the game. From the players I've known over the years, that's the comraderie we share and why most of us are here.

 

[Sception]

That means, you use the options in the unit profile, which allows you to take magic items from your army book's magic items list, or the BRB.

Have you read the unit profiles in your army book? I keep feeling like people haven't even read them, because they keep saying the unit profiles grant access to the faction items. Read the profiles. They do not grant access to faction items, they only grant access to a points limit of 'magic items' in general. The rule that allows them to take items from the faction book are in the faction items list themselves, and they are 'army rules' to the extent that they apply to armies, not to specific units.

One might think a simple fix would be a paragraph similar to the one about combining the two Undead rules– Change all rule text references of "Vampire Counts" or "Tomb Kings" to "Undead Legion." But that would create unwanted combinations (like ALL the magic items being available to either side, any chariot-riding characters joining TK chariots), which is probably why they didn't do it, and left the unit options as they appear in their own book.

The fix is to say 'undead legions units count as being in an army of the book from which they are taken - VC units count as being in a VC army, TK units count as being in a TK army.

Alternatively, there's the more specific solution as simply saying outright "VC units and characters may take items from the VC book, TK units and characters may take items from the TK book, TK characters on chariots in an UL army may join skeleton chariot units, VC characters on chariots in an UL army may not."

And if everyone really wants to argue semantics– The combining of Nehekaran Undead and regular Undead is not a rule. It's a designer's note.

A designers note is good enough. A designers note fixing the item issue would also be good enough.

Then that kind of invalidates your opinion in the matter, doesn't it? I mean if you're admittedly misinterpreting the book for your own desire. And what is that exactly– that Undead Legion only has common BRB magic items and Coven Thrones can join TK Chariot units? Like Dakaar says, that's not likely to happen.

I recommend you read my posts. You seem to have missed basically everything I've said. My reading of intent is the same as najos. The point is that I can't play with my reading of intent because it leads to arguments at the table from opponents who disagree.

 

[Henning]

This thread has made something very clear for me. I've played warhammer for over 25 years now. For all the flack GW gets about their rules, they have been maintaining a consistent and even improving standards over the years. Warhammer is a RAI game. Every time someone starts down that RAW path, it's usually 9/10 times to exploit the game some how. Now, I'm not saying GW doesn't make mistakes. But ironically, we can't often seem to agree what those mistake are. Some of their most controversial designers (Andy Chambers, Gav Thorpe, Robin Cruddace & Mat Ward) have also pushed their respective games/armies boundaries. People either absolutely love or hate their work and it is not consistent which work they consider their good or bad. So, those guys then are fairly bold risk takers that have left their marks on the two flagship games. But back to my point, I've known people who've worked for games workshop. They always have said the most obvious and common sense reading of the rules is 99% of the time the correct meaning. Whenever I've taking that approach to a rules dispute, my interpretation has been upheld in the FAQ. It's when I've been exploitive (whether intentional or not) that I've been wrong. GW doesn't want you to find loopholes and argue over nit-picky bits. They want you to enjoy a fun time with your friends pushing their toy soldiers around on a board. From the very beginnings, they've always been about the spirit of the game. From the players I've known over the years, that's the comraderie we share and why most of us are here.

Well said!

 

[Sception]

The problem with rai is that it is subjective. The tomb king players I've spoken to who support the more restrictive reading on items and chariots argue that it is the intent, and that we are being exploitative, intentionally or not, but arguing otherwise.

 

[najo]

The problem with rai is that it is subjective. The tomb king players I've spoken to who support the more restrictive reading on items and chariots argue that it is the intent, and that we are being exploitative, intentionally or not, but arguing otherwise.

You take a tomb king and chariot unit in a TK army, and he can join the unit. You take the same two units in undead legion and suddenly he can't because of a minor loop hole that was missed? Same thing with the magic items. The army special rules are labeled ARMY SPECIAL RULES. The magic items section isn't labeled that. Undead legions specifically is saying, ignore the army special rules of TK and VC when playing UL. It's doesn't say anywhere ignore content outside of unit listings like bestiary, magic items, spells, vampire powers etc.

When the designers were listing 'unit profiles, points costs, equipment, options and special rules' they had no idea a small minority of players would interpret that as But not army book magic items or a single special rule that refers to the tomb king army we missed. They are plainly and common sense saying the units from these armies still work like they did in their army.

I told an friend of mine who works for GW in their distribution about this. His response, "well, I'd probably tell them thank you, but no thank you for the game as neither of us are going to enjoy the next 3 hours of you twisting the rules and be generally unfun to play with".

Honestly, I'd be telling these players where to stick it.

In the hopes of giving you conclusive argument you need. Look at it this way.

1) only army special rules are replaced. That means page 26 in VC and 28 in TK. They are replaced with p.18-19 in Nagash.This is exactly what the bold print on pg.18 is saying.

2) p. 20 of Nagash specifically states the units use all their rules found in their army books.

3) since only thethe specific army special rules on pg. 26 and 28 respectively are not used, than everything outside and around those pages is still intact as rules that the unit options use.

Plus, it is not written any where to not use those options, even though undead legions specifically mentions not using 'Army Special Rules'Rules' and slain general/heirophant being absent. So a precedence is set that they will state what isn''t used from the army books. This goes even further to list units you can take, essentially not allowing the special characters that have changed or been killed.

So, my advice. Nicely ask your friends to start acting more like friends. Because if you see what we are saying and you explain this to them, and they still have issue...

Hope that helps

 

[Banat]

As Najo quoted. The second paragraph is crystal clear to me; units can only use special items etc in from their own army books (or BRB).

As for Undead should never have been split, well... personally the aesthetic difference between the TK and VC models is too different, to the point that I've made my own Casket and Heirotitan to fit with my Gothic VC.

 

[Demian]

But there are no Skeleton Warriors units tagged as (UL). All units in the Undead Legions Army List are tagged as (N), (TK), or (VC). The Core section lists two separate Skeleton Warriors entries:
Skeleton Warriors (VC) and
Skeleton Warriors (TK)

That was my point exactly, haha. "If" UL army is a whole different army than VC or TK, then their units would have a "special tag" that would separate them from their original VC. That would be the only way I could accept the fact that Army-specific items, such as Nightshroud would be excluded from being taken by UL Vampire Lords, etc. and in the doing of it, the UL Skeleton Warriors, having 2 different units named the same, could overlap their Rules as Written option to take a Magical Standard, which is absurd.

I stand by the "you use everything in their book, including Army Items, and rules that nominate Tomb Kings (like Chariots) can be used as normally as when they where only TK".


Actually, now that Chaos Legions will come, I hope this becomes much more clear, since Daemons have Daemon-only items, that specifically state Daemons of Chaos Army, and I don't think those would be excluded once they pair up with Warriors and Beastmen...

 

[Bullhax]

I've read along and I'm baffled that people would ever argue that I can't take the items from the respective books. It has been stated a 100 times so I wont repeat it. For once after I read the rules I thought GW had done a very solid job on the UL army rules. I was and still am sure of how the rules work.. Oh well not my headache unless I run into one with a vastly different opinion than my own. Hasn't happened yet! Luckily!

 

[Pirate Robot Ninja of Death]

People need to calm down about this. There is no clear interpretation, and which way you swing is really going to depend on what your "gut reaction" was the first time you read it. Either you think that:

1) The combined book is an "Undead Legions Army," not a "Tomb Kings Army," or

2) The RAI is clear that the Undead Legions list is just a combination of the two books, taking units identically to how they are when separate.



Which way you swing is preference more than anything.

 

[Dakaar]

People need to calm down about this. There is no clear interpretation, and which way you swing is really going to depend on what your "gut reaction" was the first time you read it. Either you think that:
1) The combined book is an "Undead Legions Army," not a "Tomb Kings Army," or
2) The RAI is clear that the Undead Legions list is just a combination of the two books, taking units identically to how they are when separate.
Which way you swing is preference more than anything.

except 1) is people going by RAW to exploit the situation, does anyone think GW will rule this way honestly? To go this way they would faq that tomb kings and prince on chariots cant join chariot units, and that the UL army is the only army that has no specific magic items... People claiming they thing this are saying RAW and RAI are the same thing, because they want to try and force RAW in RAI situations.

RAI IS clear, the choice isnt between RAW or various interpretations of RAI, as one of the supposed RAI interpretations is the RAW. Rather its a case of if you play RAW or the VERY CLEAR RAI.

 

[Sception]

1) I've heard several people (mostly tomb kings players) argue that, in fact, yes, that is exactly how they expect GW to rule if it ever actually is addressed, and 2) the same players accuse the more permissive ruling (seen as the 'obvious default' here, but not everywhere) of being the abusive interpretation argued for power gaming advantage in an army that is already overtly more powerful than the two existing game factions it draws from.

 

[Dakaar]

not at all. It is the reasonable pretty obvious stance. The powergaming stance is the one that says things like now coven thrones can join chariots, tomb king skeletons can now take magic banners etc...

As for UL being more powerful than vampire counts and tomb kings, it doesnt matter, and its mostly just sideways expansion with more options anyway. With undead legions all undead players can use it and theme their army however they like (as tomb kings, as vampire counts, as a necromancer led undead albion army etc etc) but they just have more options to choose from. Just because a units entry comes from tomb kings book doesnt mean you have to have it look egyptian in theme to use it, same as a unit from vampire counts doesnt have to look gothic. If that were the case you wouldnt have had other themes using just one of the books before either.

People have to stop thinking thats a tomb kings unit (and has to look egyptian) or thats a vampire counts unit (and has to look gothic). They are ALL undead units and can look however you like to fit your theme. Just because you are using undead legions doesnt mean you are making a nagash army either, you can use undead legions and be a tomb kings army, or a vampire counts army, just with more options. Using undead legions just means you are making an undead army. Theme is completely upto you.

For example, im an undead player from back before they were split to tomb kings and vampire counts. I dont like monsters, monstrous infantry or monstrous cavlry. With undead legions I can now make my undead list (that wont be egyptian or high gothic look) with hordes of infantry, cavlry, archers, chariots and war machines again and have more options and more viability.

 

[Pirate Robot Ninja of Death]

This is exactly why I'm saying it's subjective: we have two sides here who are BOTH ARGUING THAT THE OTHER SIDE IS ABUSING THE RULES FOR ADVANTAGE. It's a question of gut reaction as to which side you're on, because both are reasonable interpretations.

For my part I think that my #1 choice is the less reasonable position, as it negates Chariot Legions which is - to my mind - an iconic TK ability that they wouldn't have removed without explicitly saying so.

 

[najo]

The problem though, these two sides are not equal. No one I know in real life is thinking the other way. Even everyone in here admits RAI are clear. There is verbiage that supports the rules as I've laid out, likewise nothing in the undead legion rules supports this other interpretation unless you consider magic items as army special rules, which they aren't.

So, with a majority seeing it one way, nearly everyone agreeing RAI is that way, I think presenting it as being entirely subjective and the two points of view equal is false.

I understand some of you aren't going to be convinced until GW puts out something more concrete in your minds. That may never happen. In the meantime, is it really worth arguing uphill and causing strife withinwithin your community over it?

The undead legions rules fix tomb kings. It does strengthen vampires a bit. Though some people I know have stated it fix them to (slain general) and is the reason they are keeping their vampire army.

All undead legions does is give horizontal choices. You still are paying points for everything. It'd be no different than if allies were used (which this really is just limited allies being made official). This is a test run for 9th leaning towards allies and possible unbound rules. From what I've seen undead have broader choices but still have our inherent weaknesses. This army is really a return to what undead armies were like before the spilt.

Chaos legions are coming. It's uniting the three chaos armies. Daemons will still have gifts. Chaos warriors will have mutations. By the logic in some of the arguments here, those things will be removed to balance the choices. That seems unlikely and silly to me.

 

[Demian]

Tsssk tsssk.... typical Chaos strategy.

Sow the seeds of strife amongs your enemies to more easily conquer them. But they will see we stand as one!

(fluff aside, we're going to need some very good combinations and armies to beat the Chaos Legions, because... damn, WC Daemon Princes with 2 cannons? Suddenly we will have some trouble breaking them without reliable Terrorgheists!)

So, back on the uh... more original topic, about 50% Lords and Heroes... anyone thinks of a good strategy, considering the upcoming 2nd End Times expansion, and what it will bring?

 

[Alastor]

It may be that I am either wise or fortuitous in my selection of gaming community but this seems a very internet contained debate.

No one I know in real life would argue that TK's in a chariot can't join a unit of chariots, or that I am unable to take night shroud on my WK because my undead legion army doesn't allow me to select VC magic options on it's VC components.

Conversely I know of no one who would argue that I would be able to take a magic banner on a unit of TK skeleton warriors or that I can whack a couple of corpse carts or coven thrones in with a chariot unit.

The RAI are perfectly clear. It is unfortunate that even in this escapist hobby there are extremes at either end, who argue over one perceived wrong or another. Thankfully; we are massive nerds one and all, so our arguments are restricted to the power of the internet alone.

Every one likes a good debate but this one seems petty and silly when each extreme is clutching at so few, whispy straws whilst the rest of us attempt to explain reason. I do not of course which to insult anyone by calling them that most horrifically impotent of all things: An extremist rules exploiter. You are all great founts of knowledge and wisdom. I merely wish to point out that if everyone took a deep breath and allowed reason to enter their mind before allowing soft and fleshy finger to meet hard and callous keyboard, we may all agree upon the most obvious and reasonable interpretation of the rules.

Alastor

 

[PureSphinx]

50% lords is gonna be fun. I'm thinking a regular blender or a Ghoul King blender with a tanky caster as the second lord. Stick him in a unit of Skeletons with a master of the dead Necro as his bunker and you've got a decent frontline level 4 that will decimate all who dare attack his bunker. Plus you can have 4 TGs

 

[MorgretBonesmasher]

4 TG will be very noisy and a lot of sniping.

 

[Yorga]

Legions of chaos will be interesting when you do the Reign of Chaos roll during the magic phase in an army that only has a single unit of furies in an otherwise WoC army.

 

[najo]

Rumor is the reign of chaos is replaced by a new table.

 

[Adam_Barrow]

Another new table, you say? Mr. Gygax is smiling ruefully in his grave.

 

[Yorga]

Rumor is the reign of chaos is replaced by a new table.

This will make a number of people I know VERY happy...if they make the consequences less severe and less random.

 

[MorgretBonesmasher]

I wonder what they will bring now for my daemons. Now I have 4 options that are bad for me and also for my enemy. 4 options that are good for me and 4 that are bad for me.

 

[Sception]

50% lords isnt changing much for me at the small size games im currently playing. Im still running a single necro lord under 250 points in 1k point games (for reasons already sufficiently discussed, im not currently running the pariapt on him, which would outherwise push him over 250). The combined list aspect of the undead legions is making a difference, however. The casket is very nice, and very points efficient, and a tomb prince does a lot to either make grave guard truly intimidating, or make skeletons just barely tolerable enough that i feel i can run morghasts or vargheists instead of the guard.

i expect the expanded points limits to make a bigger difference at higher points, especially as i plan to start running nagash well below 4k points.