WHFB - 7th Wight King - Classed as Infantry for IoN?

[Danceman]

It's a consequence of the silly FAQ answer regarding casting spells on monstrous characters, that would be better off ignored, not least because explaining it would probably make my brain explode! I was mostly just pointing out that IoN does not specifically cite infantry as being the recipients of D6 wounds- all VC models get it, excepting exceptions.

In this context it is not 'silly' since it would point out that while character is a character it is also a 'monster' or 'infantry'.

Non-infantry = Character. You may ask how I know this, then I'd refer you to the back of the book. Characters are clearly a category on its own.

Does this stop a character would 'becoming' a cavalry model when mounted? But the character isn't the mount and as such it be hard to argue for his horse also being a character. Much like how another FAQ answers how to deal with mixed units, such as a mounted character in a unit. The unit itself isn't a cavalry unit but it has a cavalry model with it.

But at this point I don't really care. I just think it is abit dodgy.

 

[Lord Fear]

So is a Wight King on a horse cavalry or a character? Well, I'm sure you'd guess that I'd say he's both... Anyway, it all seems simple enough, treat characters as the unit type they resemble the most, for all aspects unless told not to (Like the SILLLLLY FAQ answer that says they're monsters except for that one arbitrary situation; note also that it says this because of the even SILLIER errata that modified the main rulebook to tell us that some large characters follow "some" of the rules for monsters- not specifying which, of course. It's really a different situation for infantry, as the rules don't say they only follow some of the rules, but rather that they may fight as infantry, i.e. are infantry for all purposes).

And yeah, dodgy is an opinion which you are of course perfectly entitled to have :thumb:

Given that you almost never see Wight Kings on foot, and such a character would probably be looked at as weak by most, it's probably not actually dodgy at all, in practice. This is speaking as someone who has used them, but has never actually had the opportunity to take advantage of this rule (as I usually have a Corpse Cart with Unholy Lodestone nearby so they'd get 2 wounds anyway... unless that's dodgy as well).

There's plenty of rules quirks that many of us take advantage of, like putting Necromancers on Corpse carts in units. Was it intended by GW? Hell no! Does that mean it's bent? Hell no! What about a flying Vampire on a horse, and claiming that the vampire tucks the horse under his army to fly with? Well of course, something like that requires twisting the rules, is utterly ridiculous, surprises the enemy and probably not even really legal anyway- so people who do that get applause for their lateral thinking, rather than told it's dodgy...

 

[Danceman]

Yes, he is both. However, the horse is not a character and as such the model can still be affected by things which would hinder or impair cavalry. What I've been saying all along is that he's a character on foot. Nothing beyond this. If we take a look at the character section in the rule book and how characters which are X type of model this is not a stretch at all, infact, a fair point I think.

While it is my opinion that it is dodgy, one thing if for certain that I do not care at all if some players think the FAQ is silly or not. If we were to go by what is silly or not we'd end up in a situations where we might as well ignore the FAQs and roll a D6 for half of the rules...

As for the CC and units the new errata dealing with bigger bases joining units would suggest it is well within the rules and no one should raise an eyebrow over it. I rather welcome it. Very easy to deal with and shave off a massive amount of ranks with a few wounds.
The flying vampire on a horse is rather the victim of 'rigid thinking' in so far that people think fly = wings. The description shows this is not at all how it works, or rather can work. The vampire might as well go "superman" so to speak and fly on dark magic.
But we're getting off point here...

as I usually have a Corpse Cart with Unholy Lodestone nearby so they'd get 2 wounds anyway... unless that's dodgy as well

Why would it be? That is the purpose and special rule of the lodestone.

 

[Lord Fear]

The FAQ we're talking about is silly (although I'm stating it as fact, it still is of course only my opinion), but I am not in any way saying that this means it should be ignored- it would be a strawman argument to state I am making that argument. I am saying that taking a silly FAQ and extending its remit way beyond what it's talking about isn't a smart idea at all. This is an entirely rules-based argument: as noted, monstrous characters only follow some of the rules for monsters, and this is justified in the FAQ by saying that they are considered smart enough to resist such magicks. This is as opposed to infantry characters, who follow [all?] the rules for infantry (I know of no exceptions), and so... anything that applies to infantry, applies to them. It is folly to take that other FAQ and apply it to infantry characters as well.

Remember as well, my earlier post proved that it goes the other way around to what you're arguing anyway. Here's the logical chain:
1) Earlier FAQ implies that magic effect on [unit type X] does not apply to characters that are [unit type X]
2) IoN gives all targets D6 wounds back, except models that are [unit type X]
3) Therefore because a Wight King is [unit type X], the rule saying that he only gets 1 wound back isn't valid, and you refer to default rule for IoN, which is
4) Therefore he gets D6 wounds back
5) ...and he'd probably get D6 wounds back even if mounted as well

See, that's the logical progression of applying that FAQ elsewhere- silly, isn't it? That's why I dispute point (1) as applying to anything beyond monsters.

"What I've been saying all along is that he's a character on foot. Nothing beyond this."
Nothing beyond a character on foot? Why do you specifically choose to ignore the rule telling is he acts as infantry? You can't tell me that I shouldn't ignore FAQs for thinking they're silly (when I wasn't anyway, but that's beside the point), and then ignore actual rules straight from the rulebook that have already been quoted! Characters are the unit type that they are. A character fighting on foot is infantry. That is the true end point of the discussion. A good place to stop, I think?

[The Corpse Cart Lodestone thing is just because if for some reason you think giving a WK back 2 wounds from 1 casting of IoN is dodgy, who knows what else you might think is dodgy? So let's not let dodginess or silliness sway our interpretations of the rules ]

 

[Danceman]

Fine by me. On the bright side of things, least we can feel better about raising our WK's with D6 now that've vented the possibilities.

 

[Lord Fear]

Yes, though I'll probably still need a long hot shower after such occurences There's a big tournament coming up in the UK where if you want a third character it basically has to be a Wight King, and probably on foot (apparently putting our BSBs on horses is brokesauce), so I might go for my Wight King of Ulimate Uselessness with the Black Axe of Krell (Also known as the "Axe of watch me roll lots of 6s for my rolls to wound and then have my enemy save the wounds, or take only 1 out of D3 wounds")...

 

[Sephiroth Von Carstein]

Hmmm this is really surprising for me as usually a topic like this arises and the answer is immediately given. I'm of the opinion that he regains a single wound. Why?

1) The spell specifies 'non-infantry' and the back of the book specifically splits everything into the categories unlike any other army book.

I was mostly just pointing out that IoN does not specifically cite infantry as being the recipients of D6 wounds- all VC models get it, excepting exceptions.

All VC models don't get it though, the spell specifically says: "Units with the Vampire or Ethereal rule and non-infantry units are harder to heal and only ever regain 1 wound."

And if you are corrent, why the hell is that section in the back even there?

2) It doesn't make sense to me that a WK on foot or mounted gains different benefits from it.

3) Nobody I've ever played or spoken to (until you lovely guys ) has ever even considered a WK eligible for D6 wounds healed before.

4) The quote that in the BRB that says "Characters can fight as infantry" or near enough that, says they can fight as infantry, if it said (this is hypothetical, of course it doesn't say this anywhere) "Can move like a chariot" would he count as a chariot?

But at the end of the day if a WK can regain D6 wounds, better for us.

 

[Avilyn]

From the big rule book page 7:

"[Characters] can fight on foot as infantry [...]" (leaving out the other examples of characters)

That seems very clear to me. A character on foot is both a character and infantry.

Also, in the description of Invocation of Nehek they specifically exclude Vampires. All vampires are either characters, cavalry, or monsters (there are no infantry units with the vampire rule). If on foot vampires do not count as infantry, then there is no reason to include the extra text (as they would have been excluded by "non-infantry"). Sure, it's possible they were just being overly thorough so people don't make this argument for their vampire lords, but I still thought it would be interesting to mention.

 

[Ophidicus]

I'm going to repeat myself quoting the book, Page 7 so you can show your friends. "Infantry includes all units of foot troops." A character is a unit. If he is on foot he is therefore a unit of one foot troop. "All units of foot troops" must therefore include him.* There is nothing else it is possible within the game categories for him to be. Non-Infantry, in the sense of an abstract category other than Cavalry, Chariots, Monsters & War Machines, is not a category and therefore no unit/model can be it.

As for the Summary chart, my stance is that it is there to clarify, not to disqualify and the inclusion of Characters separate from any others does not imply that they do not fall under the other categories, which, as per the rulebook they do, fighting as, and therefore following all of the rules for (which is to say the rules of Warhammer, to their full extent), infantry, cavalry, charioteer or monster [/] rider.

if it said (this is hypothetical, of course it doesn't say this anywhere) "Can move like a chariot" would he count as a chariot?

In that case he would follow the movement rules for chariots, as in the "Moving Chariots" chapter of WFB P.62. If he *was* a chariot he'd have the other distinguishing characteristics of a chariot, i.e. 3-part profile, impact hits & being bwned by S7 weapons. Glad you used the word "hypothetical" though. Long may it stay that way.

*To be absolutely covered it would be necessary for it to them to print "one or more models on foot" but we can infer that "one or more" is implied by the fact that a single surviving model from a larger foot unit does not cease to be infantry.

I need a beer.

Heh, one more edit before I accept that I can't be arsed being awake any more, as Kalandros pointed out, "[If] a Wight King is not infantry, [he] does not get +1 armour save for fighting with hand weapon and shield, and may not enter buildings, and loses any other rule or ability that revolves around his unit type." This includes +1 Attack from an extra hand weapon, & +2 S from a Great Weapon as only Infantry can use such weapons in this way. That don't seem a good use of my points. Or anyone else's, because if one character on foot is not infantry, when by all premises within the rules he must be, then no bugger else is either. No Vampires, no Chaos Champions, no Warrior Priests, Scar-Veterans or ANY OTHER CHARACTER ON FOOT IN THE GAME.

 

[Lord Fear]

Indeed, an infantry character is both character and infantry. Yes- he can be both- it's that simple! I do love Avilyn's brilliant extra reasoning as well

And if it was said of a character that it fights as a chariot, then yes, it would make it a chariot (moving is a separate matter, you only ever move as a monster or skirmisher, except if you're a doomwheel then you move however the hell you like). In fact good old P7 specifically mentions this kind of thing with what types of model a character might be

 

[Danceman]

Though I can understand it can get confusing. The FAQs and Erratas certainly did a number on me.

The difference from where I am sitting is that infantry is a type of unit. A monster can still be infantry, but rather than a unit type it is a special rule attached to X type of unit. This is what made me finally drop the FAQ as irrelevant in this case. It also makes more sense when you consider spell effects such as beast cowers and similiar spells affected specific unit types.

 

[Sanai]

Think about it. If he counts as infantry for the purpose of IoN, he is imba.
Hence, if in doubt, which the issue obviously is, be fair to your opponent and go for the single wound.

 

[TMS]

Think about it. If he counts as infantry for the purpose of IoN, he is imba.

Oh I think you'll find somethings far more imbalanced than a Wight King on foot regaining 2 wounds instead of 1 is he's down to his last.

Anyway, I just can't see a case for justifying the exclusion of the Wight King from being a legitimate infantry model and thus getting the full benefits from IoN. The strongest case against it, in my opinion, would be that he's not under the heading for Infantry in the unit reference chart on page 96 of the army book but I'd chalk that up to, as has already been said, the Wight King being able to act as different unit types depending on what you give him.

 

[Lord Fear]

Think about it. If he counts as infantry for the purpose of IoN, he is imba.

I assume you're speaking from the experience of several games playing like this, where the ability to heal 2 wounds back on a Wight King has completely wrecked the game and guaranteed your victory.

Either that or you're just making it up as you go along.

Hence, if in doubt, which the issue obviously is, be fair to your opponent and go for the single wound.

Presumably we should also only play them as having a 4+ armour save when using hand weapon, heavy armour and shield (rather than 3+ as the +1 save is reserved for infantry) as well. Can you imagine how utterly broken it would be to do otherwise?

 

[Danceman]

Ok, no need to get like that. There is no denying that being able to heal up a hero level character with T5 and 3W you barely payed 100pts for is very strong.

Presumably we should also only play them as having a 4+ armour save when using hand weapon, heavy armour and shield (rather than 3+ as the +1 save is reserved for infantry) as well. Can you imagine how utterly broken it would be to do otherwise?

Again, that is not how the argument is. Stop repeating it. The standing argument from this view goes very much like the line I described the characters being monsters or whatever.

Have we gotten angry at CN lately, or something? People belittle each others opinions, act like smart-arses, etc etc.

There are two opposing idea's. One think it has RAW on its side, so does the other, some think we should go with RAI as it 'sounds abit too good to be true' and it isn't listed as infantry in the VC book. The very same arguement which was used for raising D6 fell bats(though thats abit of strawman but you get my point here) and now got a FAQ to back it up. It is completely reasonable to argue for it being a 'non-infantry' unit which follows infantry units, but as it is listed as a character in the VC index it should not be treated as a infantry for IoN purposes.

So lets take a step back, look at the argument and realise that neither side has a 'perfect' case.

Thanks, danceman.

 

[Disciple of Nagash]

I’ve just had a read through this thread, and whilst the arguments back and forth are valid, I am really not happy about one thing.

I have noticed recently a rise in attitudes when it comes to discussions, and not just in this thread but others. People posting insulting remarks, belittling others because they have a different view etc. Yes I know that sometimes people make remarks with no thought behind them, and it can get aggravating, however that is not an excuse to be insulting in return. You can always get your point across well enough with resorting to nasty comments.

So in case any of the above is unclear, and so it is not misunderstood:

Insulting and belittling comments STOP NOW.

I will not stand for it on this forum, and I will start handing out warnings if needs be.

Though to be honest I am quite disappointed. I haven’t been able to read all the threads for a week or so with the Invocation and other work, and it seems that in that time advantage is taken. I would have hoped the family type atmosphere we normally have on here was enough to keep things civil..

If anyone has any issues or anything with what I have said please PM me directly, don’t post it here.

Disciple of Nagash

 

[Lord Fear]

Get like what? As long as people throw around silly, divisive terms like "imba" or insist that we "THINK" (as if we're not already), then that's the kind of reply they're going to get. No high horses are required, this is still a friendly discussion- and there's only one side throwing around perjorative terms and getting defensive right now, because they lost the argument many posts ago IMO

Please don't say things like "there's no denying", because there is denying. What's more powerful: the ability to heal a Wight King on foot for 2 wounds on those rare occasions he's been wounded twice, or batspam via IoN and Summon Creatures? We all know which is more popular, I know which is more powerful, but does that mean it's dodgy or nasty to be summoning D6 wounds of Fell Bats every casting? I am asking how often any of you guys calling it imba/dodgy/etc. have ever used this technique on Wight Kings, and how game-breaking it was, and you refuse to answer the question. Which says it all, really. Because it isn't. It just seems a bit funny.

I'll thank you to stop telling me what I can and can't say, please Danceman. If someone makes a poor argument, then sometimes it's hard to reply without making the original message seem belittled. Fact is, Sanai's argument is that a) it's too powerful (It's not), and that b) if it seems too powerful, then we shouldn't do it. There is no actual rules-based argument in there; you yourself have made rules-based arguments Danceman, which have been acknowledged and disagreed with, so we're all good. Just because Sanai is arguing the same thing as you, does not grant their arguments based on intention or power level, immunity to being disputed.

 

[Danceman]

I do not side with anyone at this point. I am still undecided, as per my post, and think both sides have arguments working for them. Certainly can see there are doubts, and why arguments would persist.

I am also not telling you anything. It was a request to make some attempt to be friendly. For example, in this post you've delcared yourself to be right and already having won the argument. You've also told me what my opinion is and how I believe it is beyond critique.

In short, if you want to get d6 healing done on your WK I won't stop you or even raise an eyebrow during a game, or vice versa. It is up to the club/tournament people to decide.

 

[Disciple of Nagash]

Ok, so I think we have reached point where everyone knows where they stand.

Flapula - I agree with you on the points that a fair few of the points in this thread have been made by stating their opinions like facts, without any support from the rule book, FAQ etc. When it comes to it I do think that there is nothing wrong with healing an a Wight King with D6 wounds when he is on foot.

However I should point out that you do need to bear in mind that sometimes your posts can come across aggressive. It may not be intentional, a lot of times I notice what is no doubt intended as a joke etc, however without tone etc across the net it can be misinterpreted. Perhaps more use of the smilies Or it could just be the fact that no one gets us Brits. Either way I am not picking on you, I am just asking you to bear it in mind.

Plus before anyone else says anything this does apply to everyone else, think of how your post can sound.

 

[Lord Fear]

Yep, absolutely fair enough. I think a lot of the time people see a lot of long posts and assume I must be being overly harsh, when in fact I'm just covering every angle, which I consider better to do than to just ignore my fellow poster's points whether salient or groundless

I've said a lot of things, but it's a little bit of a shame for people to imagine slights like danceman has with statements like, "You've also told me what my opinion is and how I believe it is beyond critique.", which is not even close to reality. The truth is that I respect the many good points he has made, which is why I've stopped arguing with them as we're down to opinion and personal interpretation basically, which means his ideas are every bit as valid as any other and it's not down to me to judge them right or wrong (although I will continue to stubbornly argue that my interpretation of the rules is not dodgy, imbalanced, overpowered, thoughtless, rules-lawyering or any other number of needlessly accusatory attacks that may or may not have been made throughout the thread!).

 

[Disciple of Nagash]

Excellent, we seem to have everything cleared up then.

On the note of posting, can I point you in the direction of the Invocation forum Flapula - there's a thread there by Oni that could do with your input. Ta very much!

 

[Danceman]

I was referring to this:

There is no actual rules-based argument in there; you yourself have made rules-based arguments Danceman, which have been acknowledged and disagreed with, so we're all good. Just because Sanai is arguing the same thing as you, does not grant their arguments based on intention or power level, immunity to being disputed.

Since it was mentioned in the same context as Sanai's view(and being my initial view as well) I assumed it was directed towards my argument. Came across as me being told "this is what I think". Missunderstanding then, goodie, so I shall not dwell on this anymore. Especially since from my standpoint it is not just based on intention or power level. At the same time, I can see how you think our argument aren't based on rules and supports your own argument, and vice versa, of course. But yeah, I think my point has gotten across by now, hehe.

Game on!

 

[Sanai]

I do not see imba as a divisive or silly term. It is merely a shortened form of inbalanced. The reason I would err on the side of him not being infantry for IoN, is that personally, If I am in doubt about a rule, I usually err on the side that benefits my opponent. It nips an over the gaming table argument in the bud, and is just a nice thing to do.

and please, do not attack me or others for my opinions. I did not use any hateful or angry words or flames. I expect the same from others.

 

[Sweeney Todd]

I do not see imba as a divisive or silly term. It is merely a shortened form of inbalanced. The reason I would err on the side of him not being infantry for IoN, is that personally, If I am in doubt about a rule, I usually err on the side that benefits my opponent. It nips an over the gaming table argument in the bud, and is just a nice thing to do.

and please, do not attack me or others for my opinions. I did not use any hateful or angry words or flames. I expect the same from others.

Do keep in mind that "I don't think a Wight King should be able to regain more than 1 wound from a single IoN because that would be 'imba'. " is a purely opinion-based argument, and hence is in no way valid for the purposes of the rules discussion. A post such as that will no doubt generate an 'appropriate' response, though no doubt it got a bit overly heated.

 

[Sanai]

I do not see imba as a divisive or silly term. It is merely a shortened form of inbalanced. The reason I would err on the side of him not being infantry for IoN, is that personally, If I am in doubt about a rule, I usually err on the side that benefits my opponent. It nips an over the gaming table argument in the bud, and is just a nice thing to do.

and please, do not attack me or others for my opinions. I did not use any hateful or angry words or flames. I expect the same from others.

Do keep in mind that "I don't think a Wight King should be able to regain more than 1 wound from a single IoN because that would be 'imba'. " is a purely opinion-based argument, and hence is in no way valid for the purposes of the rules discussion. A post such as that will no doubt generate an 'appropriate' response, though no doubt it got a bit overly heated.

At the same time, you are both attacking me for not following your strict format of rules argument, and derailing the thread by discussing discussional technicalities when the thread is about wheter Wight Kings are classed as infantry, not whether an opinion is valid or not if it doesnt quote a passage from a rulebook.

Personally, Im out of this discussion. I just tried to say my opinion, and got shot down. I dont really care anymore.