VC General

[Rudra34]

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]

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]

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"????

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]

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

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]

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?

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]

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

[Vipoid]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Vipoid]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.