|
Post by jeffus on Jul 23, 2020 14:03:50 GMT
Can anyone confirm the correct interpretation of the Lore of Vampire Invocation of Nehek spell please? The wording says the unit can “regain” wounds which tends to suggest the unit has to have lost wounds before the spell takes effect. However certain vampiric powers allow certain units to increase beyond their starting size eg bat swarms, dire wolves, zombies etc are you allowed to cast Invocation of Nehek on these units even if they haven’t as yet suffered any wounds? Or do you have to wait until they have suffered at least one wound before casting it on them but can take them beyond their starting size at that point? How do people play it?
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jul 23, 2020 20:07:24 GMT
As you suspect, the unit must have suffered at least one wound.
Vampire Counts AB p. 60: "Invocation of Nehek is an augment spell that targets all friendly Undead units within 6". The target units immediately regain a number of Wounds as follows: infantry gain D6 plus the caster's Wizard level in Wounds (roll for each unit); other troop types targeted gain 1 plus the caster's Wizard level in Wounds. However, models with the Vampiric, Ethereal or Large Target special rules can never regain more than 1 Wound per successful casting. Wounds gained are distributed as described in Resurrecting Fallen Warriors (see page 26)."
If we then look at "Resurrecting Fallen Warriors" on p. 26, it says: "Some magic spells and items can resurrect fallen warriors in an Undead unit by restoring a number of Wounds' worth of models to the unit. [...] A unit cannot usually be taken beyond its starting size, though certain powers, spells and special rules may provide exceptions."
The special rules you mention provide an exemption to the rule that a unit cannot be taken beyond its starting size. However, they do not provide an exemption to the requirement that there must be Wounds to be regained/restored in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by tileag on Jul 23, 2020 20:38:17 GMT
As you suspect, the unit must have suffered at least one wound. Vampire Counts AB p. 60: "Invocation of Nehek is an augment spell that targets all friendly Undead units within 6". The target units immediately regain a number of Wounds as follows: infantry gain D6 plus the caster's Wizard level in Wounds (roll for each unit); other troop types targeted gain 1 plus the caster's Wizard level in Wounds. However, models with the Vampiric, Ethereal or Large Target special rules can never regain more than 1 Wound per successful casting. Wounds gained are distributed as described in Resurrecting Fallen Warriors (see page 26)." If we then look at "Resurrecting Fallen Warriors" on p. 26, it says: "Some magic spells and items can resurrect fallen warriors in an Undead unit by restoring a number of Wounds' worth of models to the unit. [...] A unit cannot usually be taken beyond its starting size, though certain powers, spells and special rules may provide exceptions." The special rules you mention provide an exemption to the rule that a unit cannot be taken beyond its starting size. However, they do not provide an exemption to the requirement that there must be Wounds to be regained/restored in the first place. Not saying youre wrong here, but ive never seen it played this way.
|
|
|
Post by jeffus on Jul 24, 2020 6:44:59 GMT
Yes this is the trouble different interpretations. Just wondering what the general consensus is or if there was an accepted competition method of playing it. Situation is my 18 year old son and I play against each other purely non-competitive friendly games but it is bugging both of us that there is no clear guidance anywhere it seems on how to properly play this spell. At the moment we allow it to be cast whenever ie on “healthy” units but it does seem somewhat overpowering in that respect so was wondering how everyone else played it?
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jul 24, 2020 7:56:49 GMT
The guidance is in the actual written wording of the rule. "Regain" and "restore" mean just that. I always assume that RAW=RAI, unless there is some clear evidence to the contrary - which isn't the case here. As I have often observed: most rules' discussion are superfluous, if one applies the simple principle: unless specifically stated otherwise, normal rules apply. That said, if you and your opponent agree to play it differently, be my guest.
|
|
|
Post by Horace on Jul 24, 2020 22:47:55 GMT
Huh interesting. I have also never seen it played that way either
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on Jul 25, 2020 7:31:35 GMT
So to clarify. Rules such as, summon creatures of the night or master of the dead allow you to raise units above starting size using invocation but the unit must have taken a wound first?
I always love coming across these wording where I don’t think anyone plays it that way. Is this another throwback to how it was played in a previous edition (as so many of these often are) or is it just a case of the exceptions say you can raise units past the original size so thats why it’s played that way (it’s why I do).
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jul 25, 2020 9:31:20 GMT
In the 7th edition, the spell is quite similar to the 8th, and allowed a single unit to "regain wounds," "be healed back," or "resurrect rank and file models, normally up to its starting size, though some units may be increased beyond this size." All of this would require the unit to have at least 1 Wound lost. However, in the 6th edition Vampire Counts AB the "Invocation of Nehek" specified that it could be used in 3 different ways: - add models to an existing unit of Zombies of Skeletons (so no previous losses needed) - create a new unit of Zombies or Skeletons - restore wounds to MW models So, as knoffles suspects, it does seem to be another "undead rule," or "ghost from an edition past" (in casu the 6th).
|
|
|
Post by NIGHTBRINGER on Jul 26, 2020 15:06:32 GMT
As you suspect, the unit must have suffered at least one wound. Vampire Counts AB p. 60: "Invocation of Nehek is an augment spell that targets all friendly Undead units within 6". The target units immediately regain a number of Wounds as follows: infantry gain D6 plus the caster's Wizard level in Wounds (roll for each unit); other troop types targeted gain 1 plus the caster's Wizard level in Wounds. However, models with the Vampiric, Ethereal or Large Target special rules can never regain more than 1 Wound per successful casting. Wounds gained are distributed as described in Resurrecting Fallen Warriors (see page 26)." If we then look at "Resurrecting Fallen Warriors" on p. 26, it says: "Some magic spells and items can resurrect fallen warriors in an Undead unit by restoring a number of Wounds' worth of models to the unit. [...] A unit cannot usually be taken beyond its starting size, though certain powers, spells and special rules may provide exceptions." The special rules you mention provide an exemption to the rule that a unit cannot be taken beyond its starting size. However, they do not provide an exemption to the requirement that there must be Wounds to be regained/restored in the first place. Not saying youre wrong here, but ive never seen it played this way. Huh interesting. I have also never seen it played that way either I've never seen this interpretation applied either.
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on Jul 28, 2020 13:13:11 GMT
Sounds like that interpretation ends up with that you can never raise more then a couple of extra models as you would be up to full health more or less nullify the extra rules and not make em worth it? Sounds strange.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jul 28, 2020 14:13:16 GMT
Being over- or underpowered is not a valid argument in a rules' discussion. That said, those special rules cost 10, 20 or even 0 points, while the Invocation of Nehek could provide between 2/2 and 10/5 Wounds (infantry/non-infantry) to every eligible friendly Undead unit within 6,12 or 18" (since it ia an augment spell, that means in a 360 degree circle and in CC).
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jul 28, 2020 14:19:24 GMT
On a side note: I wonder how many Vampire Counts players use the Invocation on characters, although, "Unless specifically stated otherwise, spells and magic items that restore lost Wounds cannot heal characters or their mounts" (Resurrecting Fallen Warriors, p.27).
|
|
Yvain
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by Yvain on Jul 28, 2020 21:48:51 GMT
Being over- or underpowered is not a valid argument in a rules' discussion. I think its a valid argument. Like if you believe in RAW=RAI I understand you point, but I think that logic is flawed. We already have several faqs for army books and the main rules. There are others still known rules gaps in the game (banner of lost holds comes to mind). Considering the game is out of print, those are assumptions as to the worth a skill should now come into play as a rough measure of intent or wording. Hearing the ASOIAF guy discuss rule making, it is hard to make a rule air tight with just a few lines of text. Plenty of their original cards had to be reworded because someone point out how it could also mean X. Its not hard for me to image a designer writing regain wounds because the spell itself can only effect wounded units in the standard case. The special case is applied in The Newly Dead rule on page 34 that changes effect by allowing regaining pasted the starting size. To me that me that makes more sense, but I understand completely how that is not RAW. I think your point on this is how I play, but you do you is spot on though. Especially because I think WFB was always designed more with having fun in mind than making an air tight balanced game.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Jul 29, 2020 15:55:29 GMT
That it is not a valid argument should be obvious from this simple fact: there are a number of rules (units, spells, items...) that are overpowered or near useless, but where the rules are not in dispute (Banner of the World Dragon to name but one). And, as I was trying to point out in the earlier post, it is not even the case that the special rules in question are underpowered, since they amplify a spell, which as such must be among the best signature spells in the game.
A rules' discussion is about what the rules actually are - not about what one thinks they should be. Yes, writers can and do make mistakes, but they are not out to deceive us, and, normally, we can only know their intent through their writing. But, as many earlier discussions can testify, GW's writing skills (or lack thereof) seems more than matched by our reading skills (or lack thereof).
Hence, I believe in RAW=RAI - unless, as I said above, there is some clear evidence to the contrary. I have always maintained that there are two unwritten RAI everyone should be able to agree with: 1. The game is the same in all language versions 2. A rule must be playable If either is not the case, then that is clear evidence that something is wrong (see the Banner of Lost Holds). In most, if not all other cases, the issue can be easily resolved by applying the principle: "unless specifically stated otherwise, normal rules apply."
It is another matter, of course, if you and your opponent agree that a rule is over/underpowered and want to apply a houserule to even the score.
|
|
|
Post by Naitsabes on Jul 29, 2020 19:06:47 GMT
I think I know what the army book author would say about how he intended the rule to work if we tracked him down on social media. Who of us did just that for the runesmith/thane BSB highest Ld a little while back? I summon thee!
|
|