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

[Abbysal]

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!" Devil

I think that's the whole point, when a spell says pick a target Unit then Characters can be targeted but if it says an Infantry unit I really do not think a Character is in that category even one on foot.

 

[Sweeney Todd]

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!" Devil

I think that's the whole point, when a spell says pick a target Unit then Characters can be targeted but if it says an Infantry unit I really do not think a Character is in that category even one on foot.

I know this is a rehash, but I think I should point out that's a slippery slope you're on there. I assume when you arm your Wight King on foot with a great weapon he still strikes at S4 then, and when you equip him with hand weapon+shield his armor save is only 4+. If not, you're contradicting yourself.

 

[Danceman]

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!"

I cast beast's cower on a Bloodthirster. It is supposed to work on monsters but it doesn't because the Bloodthirster is a character. Spell which target specific types do sometimes fall short of not working against a certain unit type.

Same goes for what Sweeney Todd said.

However, as it says "non-infantry" and actually is non-specific in the wording. It just has to be on foot to get the D6 treatment I think I've fallen over to the D6 wound side. The FAQs I used to advocate a single wound actually wasn't mutually exclusive for the D6 argument(even though it seemed like that at first). Though when you mirror them with the IoN rules, it is pretty clear now. D6 wound for the dead king if he's on his feet!

 

[Lord Fear]

Yeah I know, it'd just be quite funny to see people arguing that their Wight King (or more likely, their Vampire Lord, who perhaps thought he was safe and sound in a forest or something) is immune to this spell based on the fact that they're characters, not infantry. I can just imagine the cries from the Skaven player- all those insulting terms used throughout the thread to describe us dastardly players who have been saying to let it have D6 wounds back

 

[Danceman]

It all comes to down how ruthlessly you apply RAW. You could probably argue your character is immune to that spell but I certainly wouldnt. As this discussion clearly has shown us how ugly it can become when you're reading too much into each word written.

 

[Abbysal]

Can we clarify just who thinks what? Who is for D6 wounds? Who is against?

 

[Sweeney Todd]

I'm for it. And to be pedantic, it's 2 wounds, not d6.

 

[Grish]

I'm against; the spell does not say infantry gets D6, it says non-infantry gets 1. Argument should not be whether characters are infantry, but whether they are not infantry (or perhaps, solely infantry). Similar, but in my mind, they are more. Too grey to be certain so I'd leave it as 1.

 

[Disciple of Nagash]

I say it should be D6.

 

[Count Erick]

I dont think it should.

On page 96 it lists Bat Swarms and Fell Bats as infantry, and thats the justification people use to have Invication raise D6 of them.
A Wight King is classed as a Charachter, not listed as an infantry model.
If the Wight King counts as an infantry model, despite not being listed as one, then I dont think a Swarm or a Flyer should.

 

[Danceman]

Very good points there, count and Grish.

While I started with the 1 wound heal, shifted to D6, I think I am going to go with a single wound after all. It will absolutely not be worth the argument that will inevitably start. While you could agrue for D6, there is alot that works for the opposite part as well. So yeah, not worth it. 1 wound it is... For now :mrgreen:

 

[Lord Fear]

I go for D6. I will also move my Wight King as infantry and treat him as infantry for in-game reasons that specify infantry

(Sweeney Todd, why do you say so boldly it is 2 wounds and not D6? Typo?)

The rule does say non-infantry get only 1 wound, which I can understand makes people lean towards only 1 wound. However I think the rules are indicative that you should treat infantry characters as both infantry and characters, unless you start picking and choosing arbitrarily, or simply inventing rules (which, yes, some of you are doing). It is quite an interesting question really, if a person counts as both X and Y, does a rule referring to non-X preclude him?

Example... For posting in this thread, all posters get D6 Zombies, but non-"True Bloods" only get 1. Count Erick, well, he's not a True Blood, so only 1 zombie for him, sorry Danceman is a new True Blood, so he gets D6, yay! But what about if someone was a True Blood and an Admin... would we say that being an Admin makes them a non-True Blood for this rule? You can make analogies with any kind of dual-nationality type question. I think in all cases, if someone is both X and Y, that would mean that a rule saying non-Xs are excluded, then they'd not be excluded, as they are X as well

Clear. As. Mud :lol:

 

[Sweeney Todd]

I say so 'cos you can't ever heal 3 or more wounds on your Wight King, if he's lost 3 wounds he's already dead. And if he's lost only 1 wound then you're only healing 1 anyway. I only said it to be anal, lol

 

[Grish]

Isn't that what I said? You and your verbose explanations... its already been said. No Zombies, No Zombies for you! You come back in 1 year. (Its the Zombie Nazi!)

Your analogy is similar, but different.

A character is always a character. They can be mounted, or on foot. They can classify as Character+Infantry, Character+Cavalry, Character+Monster, Character+Chariot. To me, they are a character first and foremost. As character is it's own, separate type of category.

So what happens to Vampire Infantry then? They are X and Y as well.
X receives 1 wound.
Y receives D6 wounds.

You're making an assumption, and it's a fair one, that the specific wording of applying to vampires trumps the non-infantry ruling. But it is still an assumption.

 

[Lord Fear]

Well, the rule does single Vampires out as receiving only one wound. In the logical process given, obviously if you were to add in an additional rule about Z only ever receiving 1 Zombie, then you'd follow that rule. Doesn't change the original analogy in the slightest, or the fact that it is accurate

 

[Abbysal]

When it says Characters are powerful individual yada yada yada. They can fight on foot as infantry, on a steed LIKE a cavalry model yada yada yada do you really think that quite significant difference was put there on purpose? I think the idiots at GW meant to say LIKE infantry not as or counting or becoming infantry. Characters on a steed are treated the same as cavalry for movement, charge bonus etc LIKE a cavalry model!!. What would you all be saying if it was cavalry models get D6 and infantry only ever get 1?

LIKE!!

 

[Danceman]

Well, the rule does single Vampires out as receiving only one wound. In the logical process given, obviously if you were to add in an additional rule about Z only ever receiving 1 Zombie, then you'd follow that rule. Doesn't change the original analogy in the slightest, or the fact that it is accurate

In the analogy I'd say he's an Admin. You could strip the admin of his True Blood status but he would still be an Admin. No matter what the rank, he's still an Admin.
True Blood is something you are in addition to your member status.

 

[Grish]

It's not clear to me. Perhaps your analogy is clear to you and you're not communicating something, or perhaps I'm missing it from your post.

I work in this type of logic all the time in computers; I understand what you're trying to say.

Let's agree to disagree (but you're wrong )

 

[Disciple of Nagash]

Not possible Grish as I agree on the D6 wounds and I'm always right