PDA

View Full Version : Can a wright king be a general?



Rakton
23-08-2010, 04:33
just wondering. in the army selection in pg. 88 in the vampire counts book says that vampires can only be generals in a vampire counts army but in the FAQs they said to ignore pg. 88 and use the warhammer army selection in the rulebook. does this mean that you can use a wright king as a general?:confused: thanks.

Yrrdead
23-08-2010, 04:41
Asked and answered.


On a side note what is my above phrase from? I can't remember.

Deetwo
23-08-2010, 04:45
Well, RAW yes. But I seriously doubt that was the intention.. But rather to just replace the slots with percentages.

Killjoy00
23-08-2010, 04:51
Asked and answered is a common lawyer term, used in depositions and sometimes in court proceedings. It's basically to prevent lawyers from asking the same question over and over again trying to get different answers.

Yrrdead
23-08-2010, 04:56
Ahh thanks.

Sarael
23-08-2010, 05:17
Wight... there's no -R- in the word. But yes, RAW, you can take a WK as your general. Not that it's a good idea to do so, but it is allowed because the update PDF says to ignore the entirety of page 88, which is where the rule for a vampire as general comes from.

Little Joe
23-08-2010, 08:22
Actually the rule book forces the character with the highest Ld to be your general. So if you skip the lord options, he IS your general no matter how many vampires present.

Deetwo
23-08-2010, 09:47
Actually the rule book forces the character with the highest Ld to be your general. So if you skip the lord options, he IS your general no matter how many vampires present.

Except if the VC rule is in use, which dictates that a vampire must be the general :)
But I guess it is really ignored according to the FAQ.

theunwantedbeing
23-08-2010, 10:27
Actually the rule book forces the character with the highest Ld to be your general. So if you skip the lord options, he IS your general no matter how many vampires present.

Unless you only have one and he's the battle standard bearer of course.

CaptainFaramir
23-08-2010, 10:37
How can a Wright be wrong...
...it was begging for it.

On topic - as above.

Rakton
23-08-2010, 18:29
so overall, i can use a wight king as a general. i think it's gone since pg 88 is the army composition that is said that a vampire needs to be in the force and act as a general. since it's part of it's army composition and deleted and replaced with the standard warhammer composition so overall, i don't have to have a vampire and can get wight/wright kings and/or necromancers as generals. to wrap it up.

T10
23-08-2010, 19:07
How can a Wright be wrong...
...it was begging for it.

On topic - as above.

Surely this grave issue is not just black and wight?

-T10

Yrrdead
23-08-2010, 19:20
Oh man this thread is so punny.

Scalebug
23-08-2010, 19:22
Hopefully, the speedy updates of the FAQ means GW is going for a better use of the web for a more "living" style errata documents, so it is possible a v.1.02 will state that vampires still needs to be in charge, and that part not being what was intended to be ignored.

We'll have to Wight and see...

Loopstah
23-08-2010, 21:02
I would like to use a Wight General in my VC army as they are cheaper than a Vampire.

Hopefully they address this in a new FAQ as it is a grave concern.

Urgat
23-08-2010, 21:19
Hopefully, the speedy updates of the FAQ means GW is going for a better use of the web for a more "living" style errata documents, so it is possible a v.1.02 will state that vampires still needs to be in charge, and that part not being what was intended to be ignored.

We'll have to Wight and see...

May I ask, why "hopefully"? It's nice that people can make a "wet" undead army that isn't necessarily vampire-centric.

Malorian
23-08-2010, 22:00
I think it's nice that a vampire doesn't have to be a general, allowing more options, however I really don't see how any competitive player could do well without one.

Maybe a team of necromancers could provide the magic needed...

Dark Aly
24-08-2010, 08:46
the lack of the vampire rule on the general might be a problem too. no marching for you.

McBaine
24-08-2010, 09:54
the lack of the vampire rule on the general might be a problem too. no marching for you.
No, you can march in 6" of a vampire or in 12" of the general. If the wight king is the general the undead can march in 12" around him.

Scalebug
24-08-2010, 10:21
May I ask, why "hopefully"? It's nice that people can make a "wet" undead army that isn't necessarily vampire-centric.

You fail to understand what was written there... obviously what was hoped for is GW getting into the paradigm of actually using the internet for updates, and it not just losing momentum, again, after this first FAQ's, not a hope for forbidding non-vampires from leading armies... :p

I made no stand on for or against that, personally I like the idea of a Barrow King or re-animated lieutenant leading a force without a vampire.

But really, the main goal was making a "Wight" joke, band I felt I had to build up to it.

T10
24-08-2010, 10:26
Surprisingly (to me, at least), your Wight King will actually have to be the army general if is the character with the highest Ld in the army - with Ld 9 he stands head and shoulders above both Vampires and Necromancers. You'd need to give him the army battle standard to keep him occupied...

-T10

diggerydoom
24-08-2010, 10:52
unless the is a lord runnign around

Dark Aly
24-08-2010, 19:36
No, you can march in 6" of a vampire or in 12" of the general. If the wight king is the general the undead can march in 12" around him.

sorry- you're right. i just got mixed between 7th and 8th. it's happening alot now (still get confused between 4th, 5th and 6th too)