Legions of Nagash FAQ Compilation Thread.

[yarrickson]

23 minutes ago, Nico said:

There is a rule on page 95 (numbered point 4, final sentence) of the Disciples of Tzeentch Battletome allowing a Battalion to have the allegiance of a keyword shared by all of its contents - so Fatesworn can be Tzeentch for example.

You don't need to go as far as the Tzeentch book though. The Legions of Nagash book has you covered on the keyword/warscroll batallion front. Per image. 

[Nico]

Death effectively have two ways to adjust the Allegiance of a Battalion.

[Lord Krell]

I love the new miniature and what the command ability can do for nighthaunt units.

But seeing that there is no way nighthaunt gets linked to a mortarch, and that the black coach and any of the other night haunt heroes lack the deathly invocation ability, it seems a bit less usefull to me running a pure nighthaunt army, and beeing a new nighthaunt hero, he should imo, be able to make the faction work.

I would love to see the command ability Spectral overseer set as normal ability, like the Saurus eternity wardens Alpha warden ability, looking something like this

"Spectral overseer" ability,

In the combat phase of this turn, add 1 to hit rolls for friendly Nighthaunt units while they are within 6" of the Knight of Shrouds.

and please add deathly invocation as a second ability for 1 or 2 units.

if you feel he's too OP with 3 abilities total remove the sword of stolen hours...

best regards,

Lord Krell

[choocheelo]

11 hours ago, yarrickson said:

You don't need to go as far as the Tzeentch book though. The Legions of Nagash book has you covered on the keyword/warscroll batallion front. Per image. 

Except this...

[yarrickson]

19 minutes ago, Lord Krell said:

I love the new miniature and what the command ability can do for nighthaunt units.

But seeing that there is no way nighthaunt gets linked to a mortarch, and that the black coach and any of the other night haunt heroes lack the deathly invocation ability, it seems a bit less usefull to me running a pure nighthaunt army, and beeing a new nighthaunt hero, he should imo, be able to make the faction work.

I would love to see the command ability Spectral overseer set as normal ability, like the Saurus eternity wardens Alpha warden ability, looking something like this

"Spectral overseer" ability,

In the combat phase of this turn, add 1 to hit rolls for friendly Nighthaunt units while they are within 6" of the Knight of Shrouds.

and please add deathly invocation as a second ability for 1 or 2 units.

if you feel he's too OP with 3 abilities total remove the sword of stolen hours...

best regards,

Lord Krell

It is my firm belief that we can expect to see a Nighthaunt book at some point in the next few months. That's my take from their relative lack of support and the recent teaser image of a ragged bit of armour anyway. 

[yarrickson]

6 minutes ago, choocheelo said:

Except this...

Yeah Nagash/first cohort is sadly not allowed in Sacrament/Blood/Night :-(

[Jamopower]

If Neferata casts her spell to an unit with shields, do they give the benefit to save even if the opponent would have rend on their weapons, as the spell ignores the rend?

 

Edit. Ignore, the GW webstore had the old scroll.

[Lord Krell]

10 minutes ago, yarrickson said:

It is my firm belief that we can expect to see a Nighthaunt book at some point in the next few months. That's my take from their relative lack of support and the recent teaser image of a ragged bit of armour anyway. 

I hope you are right, i love what they have done for soulblight in both  GH2017 and Legions of Nagash, makes me wanna roll Soulblight....

[sinksinksink]

Apologies if mentioned already - does prison of grief apply to charges? The spell states 'moves' but does not specify 'in the movement phase'.

[yarrickson]

51 minutes ago, sinksinksink said:

Apologies if mentioned already - does prison of grief apply to charges? The spell states 'moves' but does not specify 'in the movement phase'.

Hi there. There's an older FAQ chart that clarifies that moving in the movement phase, charging and piling in are all 'moves' so there are potentially three attempts for Prison Of Grief to take effect in a turn. (More if the enemy have some sort of hero phase move as well)

Gives good odds of a 5+ stopping at least one of those. 

Attached a handy pic from the FAQ for reference. 

[ZephyrExia]

A question with wording: The Tomb Banshee's Ghostly Howl now says 'Bravery Characteristic', does this mean the printed, unmodified bravery on the warscroll, or does it include any positive or negative modifiers?

If its base Bravery, then its a little disappointing, but makes sense as in a legion of blood army, it might be a tad too overpowered with each units innate -1 to bravery, plus any banners they might have.

[AverageBoss]

35 minutes ago, ZephyrExia said:

A question with wording: The Tomb Banshee's Ghostly Howl now says 'Bravery Characteristic', does this mean the printed, unmodified bravery on the warscroll, or does it include any positive or negative modifiers?

If its base Bravery, then its a little disappointing, but makes sense as in a legion of blood army, it might be a tad too overpowered with each units innate -1 to bravery, plus any banners they might have.

It means printed bravery. It is worth noting that many of the LoN bravery debuffs say that they specifically alter the "bravery characteristic" however, which means the printed value is actually changed.

[Nullius]

On 2/10/2018 at 3:34 PM, choocheelo said:

it is not  a "lookout sir" ability

you allocating wound on unit, so you must roll save for this unit

Wishful thinking notwithstanding, it’s pretty obvious to me that Nagash does not to get to take his armor or invuln saves before passing it to the morghasts for them to make their armor and invuln saves. you “Allocate” wounds BEFORE taking saves. That means “ceaseless vigil” must pop off before taking any saves.

[AverageBoss]

4 hours ago, Nullius said:

Wishful thinking notwithstanding, it’s pretty obvious to me that Nagash does not to get to take his armor or invuln saves before passing it to the morghasts for them to make their armor and invuln saves. you “Allocate” wounds BEFORE taking saves. That means “ceaseless vigil” must pop off before taking any saves.

When a unit attacks it goes through the following steps:
1. Hit Roll
2. Wound Roll
3. Save Roll
4. Determine Damage

Then straight from the rules "after all of the attacks made by a unit have been carried out, the player commanding the target unit allocates wounds..."

Deathless Minions, Ceaseless Vigil, Morikhane, and Ebon Armor all trigger when wounds are allocated.

Under normal circumstances undead will roll Saves and then Deathless Minions (the latter after damage is determined).

Nagash will roll Saves then DM and Morikhane (again after damage for those last two, but also in any order).

Nagash in the First Cohort with nearby Morghast will roll Saves, then DM and Morikhane, then Cohort, then Ebon Armor (provided Archai) and DM.

 

[WoollyMammoth]

There are obvious rules, and there are rules which are not so obvious. Obvious is defined  as "easily perceived or understood; clear, self-evident, or apparent". While many AoS players are intelligent and can decipher complex rules to the point where they are confident they understand how to play the rule, not everyone is able to do the research and come to the same conclusion. Others might even interpret the rules differently. Some things might be clear to you, that does not make them clear, and certainly not obvious.  This thread is filled with questions of rules which are not obvious but can be deciphered through the existing FAQ and rules. Everyone asking questions has a legitimate reason for doing so, whether you are knowledgeable enough to understand the answer or not, it is not obvious.

Not trying to call anyone out, but its a very common tendency with rules inquires to say things like "its very, very clear" or obvious or whatever, and its just not a good habit. You should always start with the mindset that there may be something to what they are asking, even if you think you know the answer.

A Great example is what @jamopower brought up. This has been addressed specifically in the FAQ, and you might want to quote the FAQ and say you don't get the benefit from the shields if there is rend on the weapon. But if you think about it, its more complicated than that now. If you cast the spell on a unit, they don't get the shields even if the weapons have no rend! So now we probably need a new FAQ for this, or perhaps you just shoot yourself in the foot if the unit gets attacked by units without rend.

 @Nullius
You do not allocate wounds before taking saves. The steps are laid out in the rules section for MAKING ATTACKS

1. Hit Roll 
2. Wound Roll
3. Save Roll

The save here being the Armor Save. This process is a straight line in all cases. If Nagash is targeted with an attack, this is the path. If Nagash fails his armor save, you must "determine damage"

4.  Determine Damage
Each attack Inflicts a number of wounds equal to the Damage Characteristic of the weapon

Then you refer to the next step INFLICTING DAMAGE
In which case the player commanding the target allocates wounds as they are inflicted .. as they see fit. 

Now, an argument might be made here that if you want to inflict the damage on Nagash for his Deathless Minions save, then he would have to take the damage - so instead at this point you can definitely allocate each would to the Morghast on a 3+ rather than have Nagash take them. Since there are no saves against allocated wounds, they cannot make their armor save, but they can use Deathless Minions, as a wound has just been allocated to a death model.

MORTAL WOUNDS has its own section which goes right into allocation.  The question here being, can you allocate to Nagash and then re-allocate  to the Morghast. If you can, then you would also assume you can use two deathless minions saves for normal damage above (two death models, two different saves). If you cannot, then you would have to first roll the 3+ to determine which unit each mortal wound is allocated to, and use their individual protections against said mortal wounds. 

My interpretation is that there is more evidence for the former. The reason being? Because you can use both Deathless Minions and Morikhane for sure. This means that after Deathless Minions fails, the wound would have to be re-allocated for this to be legal - and that is the case. So then you would choose to allocate and choose Morikhane. With that being true, if Morikhane fails, you would have to re-allocate the wound again, which means that it is perfectly legal to activate Ceasless Vigil at that point.

In any case, you can only ever take one armor save (Nagash's), but Wound Allocation seems to be a thing that continually re-sets with each special rule. I don't see why you could not treat Ceaseless Vigil as just another special save - as it shares the exact wording with Deathless Minions and Morikhane.

[yarrickson]

2 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

There are obvious rules, and there are rules which are not so obvious. Obvious is defined  as "easily perceived or understood; clear, self-evident, or apparent". While many AoS players are intelligent and can decipher complex rules to the point where they are confident they understand how to play the rule, not everyone is able to do the research and come to the same conclusion. Others might even interpret the rules differently. Some things might be clear to you, that does not make them clear, and certainly not obvious.  This thread is filled with questions of rules which are not obvious but can be deciphered through the existing FAQ and rules. Everyone asking questions has a legitimate reason for doing so, whether you are knowledgeable enough to understand the answer or not, it is not obvious.

Not trying to call anyone out, but its a very common tenancy with rules inquires to say things like "its very, very clear" or obvious or whatever, and its just not a good habit. You should always start with the mindset that there may be something to what they are asking, even if you think you know the answer.

A Great example is what @jamopower brought up. This has been addressed specifically in the FAQ, and you might want to quote the FAQ and say you don't get the benefit from the shields if there is rend on the weapon. But if you think about it, its more complicated than that now. If you cast the spell on a unit, they don't get the shields even if the weapons have no rend! So now we probably need a new FAQ for this, or perhaps you just shoot yourself in the foot now if the unit gets attacked by units without rend. 

 @Nullius
You do not allocate wounds before taking saves. The steps are laid out in the rules section for MAKING ATTACKS

1. Hit Roll 
2. Wound Roll
3. Save Roll.

The save here being the Armor Save. This process is a straight line in all cases. If Nagash is targeted with an attack, this is the path. If Nagash fails his armor save, you must "determine damage"

4.  Determine Damage
Each attack Inflicts a number of wounds equal to the Damage Characteristic of the weapon

Then you refer to the next step INFLICTING DAMAGE
In which case the player commanding the target allocates wounds as they are inflicted .. as they see fit. 

Now, an argument might be made here that if you want to inflict the damage on Nagash for his Deathless Minions save, then he would have to take the damage. But, at this point you can definitely allocate each would to the Morghast on a 3+. Since there are no saves against allocated wounds, they cannot make their armor save, but they can use Deathless Minions for sure, as a wound has just been allocated to a death model.

MORTAL WOUNDS has its own section which goes right into allocation.  The question here being, can you allocate to Nagash and then re-allocate  to the Morghast. If you can, then you would also assume you can use two deathless minions saves for normal damage above (two death models, two different saves). If you cannot, then you would have to first roll the 3+ to determine which unit each wound is allocated to, and use their individual protections against said mortal wounds. 

Personally I think there is more evidence for the former. The reason being? Because you can use both Deathless Minions and Morikhane for sure. This means that after Deathless Minions fails, the wound would have to be re-allocated for this to be legal - and that is the case. So then you would choose to allocate and choose Morikhane. With that being true, if Morikhane fails, you would have to re-allocate the wound again, which means that it is perfectly legal to activate Ceasless Vigil at that point.

In any case, you can only ever take one armor save (Nagash's), but Wound Allocation seems to be a thing that continually re-sets with each special rule. I don't see why you could not treat Ceaseless Vigil as just another special save - as it shares the exact wording with Deathless Minions and Morikhane.

Just want to say thanks as that is the clearest consideration of the subject that I've read. 

[tmichaux92]

I just want to be sure about the '' Lores of the dead''.

It seems that the only way to have access to those spells is trough Allegiance abilities.

The allegiance abilities says : All wizard in X know an additional spell from the Lores of dead.

My question is this. If I have 3 wizards in my list. like 2 necromancers and Arkhan (lords of sacrament for example). Do I get to pick 3 DIFFERENT spells from the lores (one for every wizards) ?

OR 

Is it ONE spell from the list that every wizard can use.

 

Maybe it's because english isn't my firt language but i'm confuse with the wording of the allegiance abilities.

 

[Gumbalina]

Here's a question.  Arkhans command ability allows extra range on spells but on vile transferable thier is 2 ranges involved. Does his command trait increase the range of both parts or just the initial targeting? 

[Richelieu]

3 hours ago, Gumbalina said:

Here's a question.  Arkhans command ability allows extra range on spells but on vile transferable thier is 2 ranges involved. Does his command trait increase the range of both parts or just the initial targeting? 

Interesting question.  I can't think of anything in the rules that would contraindicate that it applies to both.  

[Richelieu]

3 hours ago, tmichaux92 said:

I just want to be sure about the '' Lores of the dead''.

It seems that the only way to have access to those spells is trough Allegiance abilities.

The allegiance abilities says : All wizard in X know an additional spell from the Lores of dead.

My question is this. If I have 3 wizards in my list. like 2 necromancers and Arkhan (lords of sacrament for example). Do I get to pick 3 DIFFERENT spells from the lores (one for every wizards) ?

OR 

Is it ONE spell from the list that every wizard can use.

 

Maybe it's because english isn't my firt language but i'm confuse with the wording of the allegiance abilities.

 

One for each wizard.  The spells can be the same or different, your choice. 

[Richelieu]

4 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

Not trying to call anyone out, but its a very common tendency with rules inquires to say things like "its very, very clear" or obvious or whatever, and its just not a good habit. You should always start with the mindset that there may be something to what they are asking, even if you think you know the answer.

I certainly hope that my explanations don't come off as dismissive of people's rules questions.  I answer them frequently precisely because I value the questions so highly.

I do, however think there is a substantive difference in saying something is clear versus obvious.  To me, clear means that there is a logical resolution to the query using the provided system, not necessarily that it is simple, or obvious to get to that resolution.  Unclear to me would mean that there are ambiguous or contradictory rules, not that it requires piecing together many different rules constructs.  

[Andreas]

I have a question. Morbegh's claw. "they may not move...., but add two to cast for wizards within.."

Who are they, he and his claw or all wizards within..?

[Nullius]

On 2/15/2018 at 6:37 PM, WoollyMammoth said:

There are obvious rules, and there are rules which are not so obvious. Obvious is defined  as "easily perceived or understood; clear, self-evident, or apparent". While many AoS players are intelligent and can decipher complex rules to the point where they are confident they understand how to play the rule, not everyone is able to do the research and come to the same conclusion. Others might even interpret the rules differently. Some things might be clear to you, that does not make them clear, and certainly not obvious.  This thread is filled with questions of rules which are not obvious but can be deciphered through the existing FAQ and rules. Everyone asking questions has a legitimate reason for doing so, whether you are knowledgeable enough to understand the answer or not, it is not obvious.

Not trying to call anyone out, but its a very common tendency with rules inquires to say things like "its very, very clear" or obvious or whatever, and its just not a good habit. You should always start with the mindset that there may be something to what they are asking, even if you think you know the answer.

A Great example is what @jamopower brought up. This has been addressed specifically in the FAQ, and you might want to quote the FAQ and say you don't get the benefit from the shields if there is rend on the weapon. But if you think about it, its more complicated than that now. If you cast the spell on a unit, they don't get the shields even if the weapons have no rend! So now we probably need a new FAQ for this, or perhaps you just shoot yourself in the foot if the unit gets attacked by units without rend.

 @Nullius
You do not allocate wounds before taking saves. The steps are laid out in the rules section for MAKING ATTACKS

1. Hit Roll 
2. Wound Roll
3. Save Roll

The save here being the Armor Save. This process is a straight line in all cases. If Nagash is targeted with an attack, this is the path. If Nagash fails his armor save, you must "determine damage"

4.  Determine Damage
Each attack Inflicts a number of wounds equal to the Damage Characteristic of the weapon

Then you refer to the next step INFLICTING DAMAGE
In which case the player commanding the target allocates wounds as they are inflicted .. as they see fit. 

Now, an argument might be made here that if you want to inflict the damage on Nagash for his Deathless Minions save, then he would have to take the damage - so instead at this point you can definitely allocate each would to the Morghast on a 3+ rather than have Nagash take them. Since there are no saves against allocated wounds, they cannot make their armor save, but they can use Deathless Minions, as a wound has just been allocated to a death model.

MORTAL WOUNDS has its own section which goes right into allocation.  The question here being, can you allocate to Nagash and then re-allocate  to the Morghast. If you can, then you would also assume you can use two deathless minions saves for normal damage above (two death models, two different saves). If you cannot, then you would have to first roll the 3+ to determine which unit each mortal wound is allocated to, and use their individual protections against said mortal wounds. 

My interpretation is that there is more evidence for the former. The reason being? Because you can use both Deathless Minions and Morikhane for sure. This means that after Deathless Minions fails, the wound would have to be re-allocated for this to be legal - and that is the case. So then you would choose to allocate and choose Morikhane. With that being true, if Morikhane fails, you would have to re-allocate the wound again, which means that it is perfectly legal to activate Ceasless Vigil at that point.

In any case, you can only ever take one armor save (Nagash's), but Wound Allocation seems to be a thing that continually re-sets with each special rule. I don't see why you could not treat Ceaseless Vigil as just another special save - as it shares the exact wording with Deathless Minions and Morikhane.

I believe I see your point.  I spoke hastily as I  was mainly reacting to the repeated armor saves and deathless minion saves that the previous poster was suggesting. This feels very wrong. The idea of the 3+ representing an extra save after the armor save makes sense.  

[FleetAdmiral]

On 14/2/2018 at 3:04 AM, AverageBoss said:

It means printed bravery. It is worth noting that many of the LoN bravery debuffs say that they specifically alter the "bravery characteristic" however, which means the printed value is actually changed.

Just to clarify.. A unit within range of a bravery modifying banner(along with other modifiers)  will have a lower Bravery Characteristic than on the warscroll when hit by a Banshee's Ghastly howl ?

[AverageBoss]

2 hours ago, FleetAdmiral said:

Just to clarify.. A unit within range of a bravery modifying banner(along with other modifiers)  will have a lower Bravery Characteristic than on the warscroll when hit by a Banshee's Ghastly howl ?

Yes.