PDA

View Full Version : VC General



Vipoid
03-06-2012, 10:28
I'm not sure if this is a silly question, but can my army include a Wight King (or Krell), if it doesn't also contain either a Vampire Lord (including Vlad and Count Mannfred) or Ghoul King?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the VC general has to have both the highest Ld in the army (as per the core rules), and also be a caster with Lore of the Vampires (as per the VC rules).

So, let's say I have a Master Necromancer as my only Lord choice, and a Wight King in the same army. I'm not allowed to select the Master Necromancer as my general, since the Wight King has higher leadership, and I'm not allowed to select the Wight King, because he isn't a wizard and so can't have Lore of the Vampires. So, my army can't have a general, and is therefore illegal.

Have I missed something?

maltesefalcon205
03-06-2012, 10:43
You can take your Necromancer Lord as a General choice, it's all in your army book (don't have it handy on me)

T10
03-06-2012, 11:00
This was discussed at length when the VC book first came out. Pretty much two camps:

1. "The general must be one of the characters with the highest Leadership, and among these he has to be a wizard with the Lore of Vampires."

2. "The general must be one of the wizards with the Lore of Vampires, and among these he has to be the fharacter with the highest Leadership."

The conceit here is that you can somehow have an "illegal" army if you have a Ld 9 Wight King and a Ld 7 Necromancer. The fact of the matter is that the Wight King is automatically disqualified from being the general because he isn't a Wizard, somewhat similar to the way a Ld 10 Giant is disqualified because he isn't a character.

Vipoid
03-06-2012, 11:06
You can take your Necromancer Lord as a General choice, it's all in your army book (don't have it handy on me)

Could you perhaps treat me like an idiot and elaborate on this a bit, because I can't find anything that would allow my Master Necromancer to be the general in the above scenario.

As far as I can tell, the VC codex adds an additional criterium to the general selection (the general must be a wizard with Lore of the Vampires) - it says nothing about removing the criteria from the core rulebook (the general must have the highest Ld).

So, the VCs general must have the highest Ld and be a wizard with Lore of the Vampires. In the above scenario, neither the Master Necromancer, nor the Wight King fufil both criteria so, logically, neither can be the general.



Edit:


This was discussed at length when the VC book first came out. Pretty much two camps:

1. "The general must be one of the characters with the highest Leadership, and among these he has to be a wizard with the Lore of Vampires."

2. "The general must be one of the wizards with the Lore of Vampires, and among these he has to be the fharacter with the highest Leadership."

The conceit here is that you can somehow have an "illegal" army if you have a Ld 9 Wight King and a Ld 7 Necromancer. The fact of the matter is that the Wight King is automatically disqualified from being the general because he isn't a Wizard, somewhat similar to the way a Ld 10 Giant is disqualified because he isn't a character.

But, by the same logic, isn't the Necromancer immediatly disqualified becuase he doesn't have the highest Ld?

NitrosOkay
03-06-2012, 11:19
You can't possibly imagine it was intended that you can't field a Wight King without a Vampire Lord.

T10
03-06-2012, 11:44
But, by the same logic, isn't the Necromancer immediatly disqualified becuase he doesn't have the highest Ld?

Yet people manage to set up O&G armies with Giants all the time. Isn't that strange?

From what I can tell, the Necromancer's Ld 7 is the highest after removing all other disqualified candidates.

Of course, this requires a mental leap that enables us to infer that models that under no circumstances can be the general can be discounted.

-T10

woodster17
03-06-2012, 11:54
Also, the Master Necromancer was partly included in the new VC AB because of the numerous people who wanted to field a list without Vampires. It would be slightly redundant if you couldn't then make a list/field a MN without allowing him to be the general. The way I see it is that with 'the general must be a wizard with the Lore of Vampires rule', that quite clearly tells me a MN CAN be the general otherwise it would specifically state 'you must take a vampire in every list'.

hazmiter
03-06-2012, 12:11
I quite agree, the general for the vc would be the model with the highest ld, who can ALSO use lore of vampires, therefor that master necro is your general, or even basic everyday undead Joe necro.... The wieght king is just an extension of his will. And is his bodyguard.

Vipoid
03-06-2012, 12:12
Yet people manage to set up O&G armies with Giants all the time. Isn't that strange?

Giants are monsters, not characters.


From what I can tell, the Necromancer's Ld 7 is the highest after removing all other disqualified candidates.

Of course, this requires a mental leap that enables us to infer that models that under no circumstances can be the general can be discounted.

-T10

But why do you assume that the rulebook conditions can be ignored, whilst the VC conditions can't?

By the same logic, you could say that the necromancer is disqualified immedialty (because his Ld is neither highest, nor tied for highest), and so the Wight King must be the general.


Also, the Master Necromancer was partly included in the new VC AB because of the numerous people who wanted to field a list without Vampires. It would be slightly redundant if you couldn't then make a list/field a MN without allowing him to be the general. The way I see it is that with 'the general must be a wizard with the Lore of Vampires rule', that quite clearly tells me a MN CAN be the general otherwise it would specifically state 'you must take a vampire in every list'.

I didn't say that he could *never* be the general - just that he can't be the general if you also include a character with higher Ld.

woodster17
03-06-2012, 12:32
But why do you assume that the rulebook conditions can be ignored, whilst the VC conditions can't?

By the same logic, you could say that the necromancer is disqualified immedialty (because his Ld is neither highest, nor tied for highest), and so the Wight King must be the general.

I didn't say that he could *never* be the general - just that he can't be the general if you also include a character with higher Ld.

Just had a look over both sets of rules. Yes there is conflict. pg26. VC- "Your army's general must be a wizard" (selecting LoV if able to choose a Lore Spell). Rulebook states that the army general must have the highest ld available.

Only Vampires and Necromancers/MN can be the general given the conditions under pg. 26. Now, forgive me if I'm wrong but haven't we been constantly told that unless FAQ'ed the army book rules take precedent over the rule book? That in case of conflict you always take the army specific rule. In that case, Master Necromancer's can definitely be a general with a Wight King in the army.

Edit: Just had a scout around Carpe Noctem and yeah, it seems pretty clear that the army book takes precedence over the rule book.

Vipoid
03-06-2012, 12:42
Just had a look over both sets of rules. Yes there is conflict. pg26. VC- "Your army's general must be a wizard" (selecting LoV if able to choose a Lore Spell). Rulebook states that the army general must have the highest ld available.

Only Vampires and Necromancers/MN can be the general given the conditions under pg. 26. Now, forgive me if I'm wrong but haven't we been constantly told that unless FAQ'ed the army book rules take precedent over the rule book? That in case of conflict you always take the army specific rule. In that case, Master Necromancer's can definitely be a general with a Wight King in the army.

Here's the thing though - the rules only conflict when you create a conflict by deliberatly including a Ld7/8 wizard, and also a Ld9 model that isn't a wizard. There's no conflict if you have a Vampire Lord or Ghoul King in your army, or if you don't include a Wight King in a list where it will have higher Ld than any of your wizards, so I'm not certain that counts as the army book conflicting with the core rules. Could be wrong though.

Texhnolyze
03-06-2012, 12:47
Giants are monsters, not characters.



But why do you assume that the rulebook conditions can be ignored, whilst the VC conditions can't?

By the same logic, you could say that the necromancer is disqualified immedialty (because his Ld is neither highest, nor tied for highest), and so the Wight King must be the general.



I didn't say that he could *never* be the general - just that he can't be the general if you also include a character with higher Ld.

Ok, since you started it, I'm going to bring the new silly to the table.

According to how you read the rules:

1. Almost no army can take a BSB and hero level Mage as the only characters, because the BSB will be the model with the highest LD and so has to be the general of the army, but he is not allowed to so the army is illegal.

2. The only way a Vermin Lord/Snitch can be used, is if you take Queek Headtaker as the army general. All other characters in the skaven army has lower LD then the Vermin Lord/Snitch, so if the Vermin Lord/Snitch is the higest LD character he has to be the general, but he is not allowed to, so the army would be illegal without Queek.

3 Slayer characters can only be used if there is a dwarf lord in the list. Otherwise the slayer would have the highest LD in the army, and by the rules he has to be the General, but since he is not allowed to, the army is illegal.

4. Skaven assassins can only be used if there is a Lord level character in the list, otherwise the assassin has the highest LD and has to be the general but is not allowed so the list is illegal.

5. Darkelves assassins can only be taken if there is a Dreadlord in the army list, otherwise the assassin has the highest LD and has to be the general but is not allowed so the list is illegal.

All these work because the rules say something like "can not be the army general, is not allowed to be the army general" it does not say "Ignore this character when you select your general".

If you think that all the above examples are wrong, then you have to agree that the wight king can be chosen in an army with a necromancer, or a hero level vampire as a general.

woodster17
03-06-2012, 12:53
Here's the thing though - the rules only conflict when you create a conflict by deliberatly including a Ld7/8 wizard, and also a Ld9 model that isn't a wizard. There's no conflict if you have a Vampire Lord or Ghoul King in your army, or if you don't include a Wight King in a list where it will have higher Ld than any of your wizards, so I'm not certain that counts as the army book conflicting with the core rules. Could be wrong though.

You're not deliberately creating a conflict at all. If AB's always take precedence over the rulebook you build a list around what your AB says that you can do. In this case, it says that the the general is the highest ld. wizard (which in your example would be the MN) so there is no issue. You only create a conflict when you start building lists around what the AB says you can do (which should not come in to effect when considering army specific rules).

Aren't you a VC general? In which case, why are you arguing against this so much? Nobody I've met refuses to play against a list built in such a way.

Vipoid
03-06-2012, 13:21
Ok, since you started it, I'm going to bring the new silly to the table.

According to how you read the rules:

1. Almost no army can take a BSB and hero level Mage as the only characters, because the BSB will be the model with the highest LD and so has to be the general of the army, but he is not allowed to so the army is illegal.

2. The only way a Vermin Lord/Snitch can be used, is if you take Queek Headtaker as the army general. All other characters in the skaven army has lower LD then the Vermin Lord/Snitch, so if the Vermin Lord/Snitch is the higest LD character he has to be the general, but he is not allowed to, so the army would be illegal without Queek.

3 Slayer characters can only be used if there is a dwarf lord in the list. Otherwise the slayer would have the highest LD in the army, and by the rules he has to be the General, but since he is not allowed to, the army is illegal.

4. Skaven assassins can only be used if there is a Lord level character in the list, otherwise the assassin has the highest LD and has to be the general but is not allowed so the list is illegal.

5. Darkelves assassins can only be taken if there is a Dreadlord in the army list, otherwise the assassin has the highest LD and has to be the general but is not allowed so the list is illegal.

All these work because the rules say something like "can not be the army general, is not allowed to be the army general" it does not say "Ignore this character when you select your general".

If you think that all the above examples are wrong, then you have to agree that the wight king can be chosen in an army with a necromancer, or a hero level vampire as a general.

With regard to #2, the Vermin Lord is a monster, not a character, and so is excluded for working out which Character has the highest Ld.

I see what you mean with the others though. Fair enough then.



Aren't you a VC general? In which case, why are you arguing against this so much? Nobody I've met refuses to play against a list built in such a way.

I never said I'd refuse to play against such a build. However, that doesn't stop me from being curious about whether it is, strictly speaking, legal.

I was arguing because I see nothing wrong with playing Devil's advocate.


Anyway, thanks for all the responses, guys. :D

woodster17
03-06-2012, 13:28
I never said I'd refuse to play against such a build. However, that doesn't stop me from being curious about whether it is, strictly speaking, legal.

I was arguing because I see nothing wrong with playing Devil's advocate.


Anyway, thanks for all the responses, guys. :D

Meh, I understand where you're coming from. It's a shoddy bit of writing but Phil Kelly clearly intended people to be able to take MN as generals. It'll probably get FAQ'ed at some point. Also, going by this argument, you wouldn't be able to take Krell in a list led by Heinrich Kremmler, which is a bit bizarre.

Texhnolyze
03-06-2012, 13:31
With regard to #2, the Vermin Lord is a monster, not a character, and so is excluded for working out which Character has the highest Ld.

Ehe, the Vermin Lord is a Lord choice in the SKaven book, atleast in the book I bought from GW :D

woodster17
03-06-2012, 13:50
Ehe, the Vermin Lord is a Lord choice in the SKaven book, atleast in the book I bought from GW :D

Maybe Vipoid's thinking Storm of Magic? Certainly is a Lord Choice in the Skaven book.

Askari
03-06-2012, 14:16
It makes sense as if you eliminate others in order there's no issue;

1. Is the General a character?
Master Necromancer is, Necromancer is, Wight King is, Giant isn't. Giant disqualified.

2. Is the General a Wizard (and has the Lore of the Vampires)?
Master Necromancer does, Necromancer does, Wight King doesn't. Wight King disqualified.

3. Who has the highest Leadership value?
Master Necromancer, he is the General.

This way all the rules are obeyed, by eliminating the Necromancers due to not having the absolute highest Leadership, you'd be breaking the rule for step 2.

It would only be an issue if the Necromancer/Master Necromancer didn't have a leadership value and therefore couldn't have the highest. But that's a moot point.

Vipoid
03-06-2012, 15:33
It makes sense as if you eliminate others in order there's no issue;

1. Is the General a character?
Master Necromancer is, Necromancer is, Wight King is, Giant isn't. Giant disqualified.

2. Is the General a Wizard (and has the Lore of the Vampires)?
Master Necromancer does, Necromancer does, Wight King doesn't. Wight King disqualified.

3. Who has the highest Leadership value?
Master Necromancer, he is the General.

This way all the rules are obeyed, by eliminating the Necromancers due to not having the absolute highest Leadership, you'd be breaking the rule for step 2.

It would only be an issue if the Necromancer/Master Necromancer didn't have a leadership value and therefore couldn't have the highest. But that's a moot point.

I understand what you mean. It just seemed before that you could do it in a different order - removing the master necromancer first, since he didn't have the highest Ld.



Ehe, the Vermin Lord is a Lord choice in the SKaven book, atleast in the book I bought from GW :D

It's a Lord choice, but the General has to be a character, and the Vermin Lord is a monster, not a character.

Askari
03-06-2012, 15:50
I understand what you mean. It just seemed before that you could do it in a different order - removing the master necromancer first, since he didn't have the highest Ld.

I know you get it, but I'm just clarifying for other potential readers. The actual order is irrelevant as you still need to satisfy all the rules at the same time, my method there was just a way of finding out who is eligible, not an order of priority for the rules. Without breaking at least one rule you'd end up with the Master Necromancer.

Rudra34
03-06-2012, 16:42
It's a Lord choice, but the General has to be a character, and the Vermin Lord is a monster, not a character.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

The vermin lord IS a character who happens to have the troop type 'monster'. He is a lord choice, he is a wizard, he just cannot be taken as general due to army book rules. By your logic daemon princes and greater daemons aren't characters either, which is completely incorrect.

Vipoid
03-06-2012, 16:44
The two are not mutually exclusive.

The vermin lord IS a character who happens to have the troop type 'monster'. He is a lord choice, he is a wizard, he just cannot be taken as general due to army book rules. By your logic daemon princes and greater daemons aren't characters either, which is completely incorrect.

So, are all Lord choices automatically characters then?

BlackPawl
03-06-2012, 17:04
I understand what you mean. It just seemed before that you could do it in a different order - removing the master necromancer first, since he didn't have the highest Ld.




It's a Lord choice, but the General has to be a character, and the Vermin Lord is a monster, not a character.


Why in the world is the Vermin Lord "only a monster and not a character"???? :confused:

If he is "only a monster" then he would be better in the rare / special choices and not in Lord choice!

And why could a monstrous character not be a general? By this thinking Ogres could not have a general because all they have are montrous infantry ... good to know .. ;)

Vipoid
03-06-2012, 17:39
Why in the world is the Vermin Lord "only a monster and not a character"???? :confused:

I ask again - is it automatically a character because it's a Lord choice?


And why could a monstrous character not be a general?

If I recall correctly, the Vermin Lord is specifically forbidden to be the general.

Otherwise, I have no problem with a monstrous character being the general - I just want to know how you know that it's a character, and not just a monster.

BlackPawl
03-06-2012, 18:38
I ask again - is it automatically a character because it's a Lord choice?



If I recall correctly, the Vermin Lord is specifically forbidden to be the general.

Otherwise, I have no problem with a monstrous character being the general - I just want to know how you know that it's a character, and not just a monster.

Then I ask:
Why should they notice that the Vermin Lord can not be a general when he is not a character? :confused:

And yes, if he comes from the lord or hero choice then it is a character!

It's on page 97 in the Skaven AB (and in every other AB): "Characters comes in two categories: Lords and Heroes ..." - so it should be clear what it is ...

T10
03-06-2012, 20:13
Nasty Skulkers are in fact characters. And they are not Heroes nor Lords but additional models in a Core unit. So there.

Vipoid
03-06-2012, 20:29
And yes, if he comes from the lord or hero choice then it is a character!

It's on page 97 in the Skaven AB (and in every other AB): "Characters comes in two categories: Lords and Heroes ..." - so it should be clear what it is ...

All the old ones perhaps - my 8th edition one certainly doesn't say that. If it's a character, then it says character in the individual unit entry.

hazmiter
03-06-2012, 22:17
Hehehehe.
It's a fun twisty one.
But try the master necromancer on a corpse cart.
If the master necro dies, does the cart have a ld.

Vipoid
03-06-2012, 22:45
Hehehehe.
It's a fun twisty one.
But try the master necromancer on a corpse cart.
If the master necro dies, does the cart have a ld.

If the master necromancer was your general, I think the cart's Ld is the least of your worries. ;)

Valheru
03-06-2012, 22:48
The rulebook states that an army book's rules take precedence over the rulebook rules. So in this case choosing your general, you don't have to satisfy highest leadership and wizard on the lore of vamps just wizard on the lore of vamps. If you have 2 or more wizards on the lore of vamps then the highest leadership comes in to effect as well. So yes you can take a necromancer/mn and a wight king and have the necromancer/mn as general!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

BlackPawl
03-06-2012, 23:56
All the old ones perhaps - my 8th edition one certainly doesn't say that. If it's a character, then it says character in the individual unit entry.


Yea, but there is no 8th edition army book for skaven. And if we would go by definition of the appendix in the Rulebook there is no entry "character" - so with only this in mind there would be no characters in all the 7th editions books anymore!
So we had to look at the appropriate armybooks and there it stands that a Vermin Lord is a character!


Nasty Skulkers are in fact characters. And they are not Heroes nor Lords but additional models in a Core unit. So there.

I havn't said that there is no other source for characters, I have just said that all choices from Lords and Heroes are characters!

hazmiter
04-06-2012, 00:32
Vipoid, the cart auto melts due to no ld, ld is from the rider XD

Vipoid
04-06-2012, 09:02
Yea, but there is no 8th edition army book for skaven. And if we would go by definition of the appendix in the Rulebook there is no entry "character" - so with only this in mind there would be no characters in all the 7th editions books anymore!
So we had to look at the appropriate armybooks and there it stands that a Vermin Lord is a character!



I havn't said that there is no other source for characters, I have just said that all choices from Lords and Heroes are characters!

What I meant was that I don't own any 7th edition army books - so the fact that all Lords and Heroes are automatically characters in 7th edition books is hardly common-knowledge, from my point of view.



Vipoid, the cart auto melts due to no ld, ld is from the rider XD

O_o

hazmiter
04-06-2012, 09:11
The corpse cart can't make a ld test to avoid melting if you have a twice killed character on it.
As the character replaces the corpse master, and only the corpse master has a ld value from recollection.

T10
04-06-2012, 09:14
I havn't said that there is no other source for characters, I have just said that all choices from Lords and Heroes are characters!

Actually...


It's on page 97 in the Skaven AB (and in every other AB): "Characters comes in two categories: Lords and Heroes ..." - so it should be clear what it is ...

... is a statement to the effect that it precludes non-Hero and non-Lord characters. But I am sure you meant to say what you say you said.

-T10

Soundwave
04-06-2012, 13:58
Vermin lords and assassins although characters stipulate they may not be army generals or allow even units to use there leadership in the appropriate sections of the according codex.So there awesome leadership only accounts for them makeing other lord and hero characters the general by default.The stipulation applies the vamps general 'must be a wizard who uses lore of vampires" so would override any other ld ship based scenarios eg wight king.

woodster17
04-06-2012, 15:22
Vermin lords and assassins although characters stipulate they may not be army generals or allow even units to use there leadership in the appropriate sections of the according codex.So there awesome leadership only accounts for them makeing other lord and hero characters the general by default.The stipulation applies the vamps general 'must be a wizard who uses lore of vampires" so would override any other ld ship based scenarios eg wight king.

Well the question is RAW or acting sensible so theoretically you could remove the MN from being able to be the general if you apply the ld. test rule from the rulebook first. However, since AB's> RB in terms of precedence then yes, I agree, the general being a wizard who must use the LoV overrides all other rules for a VC general. I'm sure it will get FAQ'ed when the VC FAQ comes round. There are a few other things to iron out. As a side note, annoys me when people call a WFB army book a 'codex', seems generally a 40K piece of terminology even though the definition of codex is 'ancient manuscript'. Would prefer tome. I like the word 'liber' too, so Liber Vampire Counts would be quite cool.

Askari
04-06-2012, 15:37
Well the question is RAW or acting sensible so theoretically you could remove the MN from being able to be the general if you apply the ld. test rule from the rulebook first.

You don't apply any rule first.
This is why the situation comes up at all. It doesn't even need an FAQ. You don't actually eliminate candidates in order, that's just a system to find out who's eligible or not. The General must still fulfill all the rules for being a General, which in the case of the Wight King he cannot possibly be a Wizard using the Lore of the Vampires, so isn't even part of the equation.

woodster17
04-06-2012, 15:43
You don't apply any rule first.
This is why the situation comes up at all. It doesn't even need an FAQ. You don't actually eliminate candidates in order, that's just a system to find out who's eligible or not. The General must still fulfill all the rules for being a General, which in the case of the Wight King he cannot possibly be a Wizard using the Lore of the Vampires, so isn't even part of the equation.

In which case using RAW the Master Necromancer can't either because he doesn't fulfill ALL the rules. I'm on the side of most people here, I want to eventually use a MN as general in some games and would have no problem playing against the MN as general, but some people might because of what the rulebook says. It certainly needs an FAQ, there wouldn't be 40 posts on this thread discussing the issue if it didn't need an FAQ.

Askari
04-06-2012, 16:04
Except he does. How do you know who has the highest Leadership without anyone to compare it to? There's no point comparing to the Wight King, as he can't possibly be the General since he isn't a Wizard. You wouldn't compare the Master Necromancer's Leadership against a core Ghoul model would you (regardless that it's indeed less)?

You only need to compare to other eligible models. The General needn't have the highest Leadership in the army, he has to have the highest Leadership of any character that's a Wizard using the Lore of the Vampires. All rules at once.

Soundwave
04-06-2012, 16:21
Sorry woodster17 your right i dont even play 40k yet,been to busy with fantasy for 17 years and some of the guys i play with whom also play 40k call units squads and it drives me up the wall! Army books from now on no more codex i promise.Anyway Askari is right the question of leadership and generalmanship only applies to the wizards useing the lore of vampires.I left my book at a friends house, who has the higher leadership Khemmler or Krell?

woodster17
04-06-2012, 16:38
Krell has Ld.9, Kemmler Ld.8 which is a little bit silly. Actually, Kemmler has 3 stat lines in the book, one of which has him at Ld.9 (on page 58 I think) which is shoddy proofreading. Askari I completely agree with you, you'll get no argument from me. A Wight King can't be the general, therefore the MN has no comparable character of higher leadership (unless Vamps are included int the list of course). However, a WK is still a character with a leadership value higher, therefore some people could possibly complain. It's a kind of silly complaint given the specific WK rule but there is a complaint none the less.

Vipoid
04-06-2012, 16:42
It's a kind of silly complaint given the specific WK rule but there is a complaint none the less.

Specific Wight King rule?

woodster17
04-06-2012, 16:44
Specific Wight King rule?

Error :p Should be wizard specific rule, i.e he isn't one. My bad.

Soundwave
04-06-2012, 16:48
Well if Krell has higher leadership than Khemmler it may solve the issue given vampire counts love stories part 2 in the army book.I do not think games workshop would want to break any hearts by not allowing one without the other unless it has to be under the watchfull gaze of manfred.(kinky)