You did indeed get shot down for your opinion, as can happen to anyone taking part in a discussion. Just because we disagree with you, doesn't mean you should take it as a personal attack. We are allowed to disagree with you, aren't we? 
WHFB - 7th Wight King - Classed as Infantry for IoN?
- Thread starter Macaronixmax
- Start date
-
The masquerade of murder returns! A new game of Vampires Amongst Us has begun. Unmask the killers, trust no one, and try to survive the night. Find out more and sign up now!
I dont mind you guys disagreeing with me, as long as your disagreement is on topic. But if your counter argument has nothing to do with the actual topic, then its pretty stupid.
I've Being reading this thread carefully, and still don't get close to a consensus. So it drives me to ask myself:
How long we are willing to argue with an oponnent to get a Wigth king healed a d6 wounds?
As i feel, that's the real question. is clear that i have many arguments, and also the other part will have many. So im i willing to ruin the fun, with a heavy discussion (even agressive), just to get the spell maximized?
I will do it for a tourney championship (i think), but i wouldn't like to ruin every friday nigth game for this topic....
How long we are willing to argue with an oponnent to get a Wigth king healed a d6 wounds?
As i feel, that's the real question. is clear that i have many arguments, and also the other part will have many. So im i willing to ruin the fun, with a heavy discussion (even agressive), just to get the spell maximized?
I will do it for a tourney championship (i think), but i wouldn't like to ruin every friday nigth game for this topic....
Friendly tournaments(ie, closed circle), Comped tournaments, The hoff BSB WK in a GG unit. A WK with a GW supported with a Vampire with Helm is also quite hitty. Sword of Kings is by no means a no brainer... And with the hoff banner + Helm and GW he's got 3 S6 attacks with Killing bow and lends his unit a 4+ regen save. Not bad for a 200-ish point model.
Others play this game without feeling the need ALWAYS maximise on every single strength we've got, you know. We're already hated for a great many reasons, no point is push this even further. Some of us just don't go with the way of WAAC, or see a tactical challenge in trying to make a 'lesser choice' work, or just like the look. Indeed, a combination of all of the reasons mentioned, or perhaps another reason entirely.
I think Darkos said it best though, I will advocate for D6 wounds but I will not be stubborn about it. Just a game, after all.
Others play this game without feeling the need ALWAYS maximise on every single strength we've got, you know. We're already hated for a great many reasons, no point is push this even further. Some of us just don't go with the way of WAAC, or see a tactical challenge in trying to make a 'lesser choice' work, or just like the look. Indeed, a combination of all of the reasons mentioned, or perhaps another reason entirely.
I think Darkos said it best though, I will advocate for D6 wounds but I will not be stubborn about it. Just a game, after all.
Err, Darkos was clearly talking about how having a WK on foot and healing D6 wounds would be like a WAAC choice, only for the big championship-style games, and I was saying how in that style of game, you wouldn't be bringing a King on foot either way. So is it the WAAC, max-power option or not, even with healing D6 wounds? Nah, he'd be on a horsey as is the case 99% of the time.
I've already stated that I've used Wight Kings on foot and I rather expect that I'm probably the only person in this thread who's ever brought one to tournaments before. Anyone else ever used them?
I've already stated that I've used Wight Kings on foot and I rather expect that I'm probably the only person in this thread who's ever brought one to tournaments before. Anyone else ever used them?
I've never brought one to a tournament because I rarely play in them, but I always use one in my other battles because I don't have or like the model for the mounted one haha. To be fair most people avoid getting into combat with them unless they know they're probably going to kill them as they're worth bugger-all pointswise. That's why the situation has never arisen that I heard this argument before, unlike the fell bat one which I hear every time I play 
If I take a WK BSB, I take him on foot!
If he's not the BSB, then he's usually on a horse w/the black knights....
If he's not the BSB, then he's usually on a horse w/the black knights....
I probably wouldn't try to heal more than 1 wound on my white king just because I wouldn't want a looooooooong discussion with my opponent about whether or not it was legal or not whilst trying to have a nice evening of slaughter but I would like to point out that GW probably would have said "units with the vampire, ethereal rule, white kings and non infantry" instead of just vamps ethereal and non infantry if they really didn't want you to do it!
Lets face it GW can sometimes be a little vague in regards to rules.
Lets face it GW can sometimes be a little vague in regards to rules.
Abbysal said:Lets face it GW can sometimes be a little vague in regards to rules.
By vague do you mean they let crack-smoking sloths with no hands type up the army books? That's what I always assumed.
Here is an interesting thread I found on Warseer concerning the Dwarf lord and some axe he carries and wether he is considered infantry on foot while being carried on shieldbearers or is he considered on a mount. They all seem to agree that even though he's a Character.....he is still considered infantry.......:mrgreen: Interesting...........:idea:
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251319
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251319
I ran this pass two of my friends so far and they both agreed if the Wright King is on foot then He would qualify for two points of healing under ION.
As my friend Jesus puts it "The Wright King is a brick and should be tough to take down."
Once I have a consensus among my friends Then I will start doing this especially if the rumored character cap turns out too be true.
If I am going to have to bring less vampires because of their points cost then I will need to rely on Wright Kings to give my skeleton units the killing power they need to win combat and being able to heal two points on the Wright King makes him an attractive hero choice.
I really only see this being a problem with one of the guys I play with and to put it diplomatically He is not a fan of the fact I can heal fell bats and bat swarms as infantry, it is an issue every game we play and it really sucks the fun out of the game.
As my friend Jesus puts it "The Wright King is a brick and should be tough to take down."
Once I have a consensus among my friends Then I will start doing this especially if the rumored character cap turns out too be true.
If I am going to have to bring less vampires because of their points cost then I will need to rely on Wright Kings to give my skeleton units the killing power they need to win combat and being able to heal two points on the Wright King makes him an attractive hero choice.
I really only see this being a problem with one of the guys I play with and to put it diplomatically He is not a fan of the fact I can heal fell bats and bat swarms as infantry, it is an issue every game we play and it really sucks the fun out of the game.
Bottom line I've learned from this discussion?
don't get into a discussion on the other side of the line from Flapula. Good lord he knows how to pick people apart. :thumb: I'm learning from you, 'Cept I use more smileys. :konrad:
I'm healing my two wounds from my Wight King. If my opponent has any issues, he can look it up after the game and if he finds anything else other than in this thread, then I'll concede the point.
don't get into a discussion on the other side of the line from Flapula. Good lord he knows how to pick people apart. :thumb: I'm learning from you, 'Cept I use more smileys. :konrad:
I'm healing my two wounds from my Wight King. If my opponent has any issues, he can look it up after the game and if he finds anything else other than in this thread, then I'll concede the point.
I'd just heal one personally. To me, its still quite grey. No argument here has convinced me either way, and after pouring through the book, it's still grey.
I will say that characters on foot move and fight as Infantry. I would say for most game effects they are Infantry. But they are also more than Infantry, they are characters as well.
So a spell that affects infantry affects them. A spell that affects characters affects them. A spell that affects non-infantry is grey. Character is a unit type, and therefore character falls into non-infantry (something that is not infantry). If the spell stated that it gave infantry D6 wounds, without the clause that non-infantry gets one wound, then I'd be all for it. It's the clause 'non-infantry' that makes it so grey to me.
If any kind of argument has to get to this level, I would say its a grey area and dice for it. It's definitely not clear cut, to me.
I will say that characters on foot move and fight as Infantry. I would say for most game effects they are Infantry. But they are also more than Infantry, they are characters as well.
So a spell that affects infantry affects them. A spell that affects characters affects them. A spell that affects non-infantry is grey. Character is a unit type, and therefore character falls into non-infantry (something that is not infantry). If the spell stated that it gave infantry D6 wounds, without the clause that non-infantry gets one wound, then I'd be all for it. It's the clause 'non-infantry' that makes it so grey to me.
If any kind of argument has to get to this level, I would say its a grey area and dice for it. It's definitely not clear cut, to me.
Personally I would class each unit as falling into only one category, despite movement rules/on foot/etc, for the purpose of spells. Take the wight king for instance. It can move and fight as infantry, but it is mainly a character, so it is safest to class it as not infantry. Are there any other spells that have specific effects about infantry/non infantry? Perhaps we can look for rulings on those.
edit: I just had another thought. Doesnt GW have an email or a number or an adress you can email/call/write with rules queries?
edit: I just had another thought. Doesnt GW have an email or a number or an adress you can email/call/write with rules queries?
The crux of this argument boils down to whether a Wight King is both a character and infantry, or just a character. I'm on the side that he would get back 2 wounds, as considering him as solely a character would have other, illogical implications and there's no indication that we should apply double standards in this place(ie: that we should consider them characters only for IoN purposes). Besides, the only difference between the results of the 2 different camps is just 1 measly wound.
BTW Sanai, I recall they do have such a hotline. But the ones on the other end of the line are redshirts who know no more than you or I. Call 5 times and you'll get 5 different answers.
BTW Sanai, I recall they do have such a hotline. But the ones on the other end of the line are redshirts who know no more than you or I. Call 5 times and you'll get 5 different answers.
I think White Dwarf used to have a section for you to mail into and get definitive, final answers on rules stuff. Dont think it exists anymore. Such a shame.
Given the reference sheet at the back, we should consider how the fell bat and swarms were dealth with. Both got referred to the back of the book "Look, they're under infantry".
Like Grish says, to me, it is rather grey still.
Like Grish says, to me, it is rather grey still.
Well, it looks to me that every angle and point has been covered, short of sending a letter/petition/plea to Games Workshop to have the actual rule writers themselves give a ruling on it in a faq. Personally, I am going to save my IoN's for other units, just to save myself the headache 
Sanai said:
There is nothing in the rules that tells you that a Wight King can move as infantry- if he's on foot, he will move as a skirmisher, and if he is mounted, he will move as a monster. However, for some reason you have made the logical leap that this model running around on foot should be treated like any other infantry model running around on foot, because it makes sense. Well guess what- it does, and you are right to do so
Another example of a spell that specifically hits infantry (Which I already mentioned dozens of posts ago, which was summarily ignored) is the new Skaven's "Thirteenth Spell", in which you must specifically target an infantry unit, and if the spell is cast, the unit suffers 4D6 casualties. I would love to see a Skaven player try and cast this spell on a Wight King hanging out by himself, only to be told, "No, he's not infantry, the spell fails, mwahahaha!" :devil2: