Jump to content

Should we have an updated LoN book?


El Syf

Recommended Posts

So after some other battletomes have been redone should ours?

After all sometimes points reductions aren't all that's required, legion of grief seems like it would need to be absorbed into the book for starters.

Nagash needs to stay exactly as he is I feel no points increase and no nerf stick.

What's everyone elses thoughts?

Edited by El Syf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think we are better of if just almost all of the army’s that weren’t supported in the last few years would get some kind of an update.

sure Legion of nagash, Dok or even DP

might need a slight update sometimes, but unlike others armies (Disposesseds, Aelves (High, dark, and wood), Free people, etc), they are perfectly fine.

 pointchanges can be done easily with just the ghb, which is hopefully coming out next month.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even I'm not a LoN Player I would say yes.

And those are my reasons.

  • The Death Allegiance is printed into the book (and should be outdated by the Rulebook 2.0)
  • There is no uniting keyword (except the optional Legions) in the Legions of Nagash Battletome (like for Beasts of Chaos, Gloomspite Gitz or Skaventide). For example Royal Terrorgheist and Royal Zombiedragon do only have the Death Keyword
  • Nighthaunt units aren't up to date anymore after the Errata is telling us that we should use those from the Nighthaunt Battletome
  • Nighthaunt Units had to be added to Legions with the Errata
  • "Deathmarch" is a Death Battalion instead of a Deathrattle Battalion
  • "Castellans of the Crimson Keep" is a Death Battalion instead of a Soulblight Battalion (which makes it impossible to use in a Soulblight Allegiance Army).

The main problem with the last two points is, that Allegiance worked different in the old edition, after you could either take the Allegiance of the Battalion or the Allegiance of the units within the Battalion. Now with the rules that units become allies when the battalion doesn't have the right keyword it hurts mostly those two battalions (especially after it is needless making them Death-Battalions after they would be Deathbattalions as well if they where Deathrattle/Soulblight Battalions)

It is understandable that the Battletome was a little cruid, after it was the first mixed keyword battletome.

As for the Legions. Instead of the following ruling:

Quote

Legions of Nagash:

When you are choosing your army, you may decide it is taken from one of the Legions of Nagash. If you do, choose one of the following faction keywords. All units and warscroll battalions in your army selected from this Battalion gain that keyword.

It would be better the units that could be part of the legions would be more Keyword based (like in the Legion of Grief, where they sadly forgot the battalions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I think LoN falls into the same category as a number of other battletomes for this question.  Yes it would be nice to get an update, bringing together all of the changes made and polishing things.  I even think you could justify splitting the battletome up - removing Grand Alliance Death and Soulblight into their own separate battletomes/books and having the 4 Legions plus Grand Host in a single volume (with a better range of battalions).

However, I think there are battletomes out there in greater need of update (or in cases don't even exist) which I'd rather see receive an update.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree there's lots of armies with existing battletomes that need a look in before LoN, it just seemed with legion of grief being added to the mix and the errata allowing certain nighthaunt units to be used (which still surprises people from time to time); an update might be on the cards.

Overall I'm reasonably happy with LoN and wouldn't be that fussed if it stayed around for a few years bar the recent power creep with the newer tomes.

Only thing I would change is morghasts getting a decrease in points and possibly regaining the summonable keyword (in grand host it feels right from a lore perspective if Nagash is general, similar to now how they are battleline if he is general).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that Legions of Nagash will get a new book, but probably not until all the other Death armies that are going to see an update get it. So whatever new Death book is in the works for this year (Soulblight? Deadwalker? Deathrattle? Something else? If you say Tomb Kings I'll send you to the kitten gulag) will come first and either be added to an existing legion (ie. if we get a Soulblight book that's going into the Legion of Blood) or make a new legion (a la Legion of Grief).  Why? Because it's rad as hell and also old and weird, and GW seems pretty dedicated to keeping the rules up to date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could argue that the Sylvaneth book was the first proto 2.0 book, GW even said when it came out it was the first in a new style of battletomes. 

As I said I’m reasonably happy with the book sticking around for a few years it will get annoying if there’s constant errata's to add new stuff in as I’m sure legion of grief will add to the existing ones.

Edited by El Syf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, El Syf said:

Overall I'm reasonably happy with LoN and wouldn't be that fussed if it stayed around for a few years bar the recent power creep with the newer tomes.

This is pretty much how I feel.  GeeDub can keep FAQ-ing till the cows come home.  Unlike 40k I can agree with these fixes, corrections, or clarifications for the most part.

Would love to see Grave Guard and Black Knight warscrolls sorted out.  These guys were so great a decade ago in their metal glory.  Now they feel like hot plastic garbage.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heeeeeeck no.

In don't want to encourage GW to replace $40 (or $80 for special edition versions) books that quickly.

Not only does it feel anti-consumer, but it gives them permission, of a sort, to be sloppy with the rules.

"What's that you say? The rules in here have not been tested much and are confusing or bad? Well, that's ok. Let's take the money from a few thousand customers today, and then come back to it again in a year, fix it, and charge again for the actual correct version."

No thanks.

Edited by Sleboda
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, El Syf said:

You could argue that the Sylvaneth book was the first proto 2.0 book, GW even said when it came out it was the first in a new style of battletomes. 

As I said I’m reasonably happy with the book sticking around for a few years it will get annoying if there’s constant errata's to add new stuff in as I’m sure legion of grief will add to the existing ones.

Nurgle, LoN, IDK, and DoK were written with 2.0 and all its changes in mind (endless spells, no more reserve points, etc) according to GW themselves. Any books that came out prior to those 4 were not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I‘m really happy with the book, even thou LoNight and LoBlood are not really as powerful as GH or LoSacrament. Buuuuut... that will always be the thing. In high competitive play you will search for the most bang for your bucks and that will boil down any combination of models to a chosen few. Same happens with my FEC, if you’re not beer and pretzeling it, you have 2-3 lists, all the others are friendly game.

But I do love friendly games and LoN and LoB are often used. Heck I even like riding out Soulblight style. (No bedsheets thou...never ever) 

the sheer amount of valid options and Styles in friendly games makes Nagashs Legions the best and most fun to play in all the realms! The battleline options alone skellis, zombies and wolves (bedsheets for the depraved) are all valid and useful, with graveguards, Bloodknights and morghast in legions also very nice in friendly play and fluffy AF!!!

The wide amount of elite units and their quirks and uses... and synergies (deathmarch, lob bravery bombs etc...)  just leaves all the other factions in the dust. (Have i mentioned that I happily play FEC with the monstrous amount of 4 mighty heroes, 4 minor champs, two elite units and ONE battleline, add two monsters)

the legions have !!!! 20 !!! Heroes!!! Twenty... and a sheer unbelievable amount of !!!18!!! Eighteen... 18 units and three monsters.

I have not done the math, but that is about the amount that the other grand alliances have in total...(totally not, but still)

all the rules are kinda ok, the synergies are mostly there (poor vargheists) and in a friendly environment you can play for years without fielding the same list twice and still have fun.

please gdubs, never touch that book again, you will ruin it.

if on top of all this, with all the other poor factions out there that just hide out there in the wastelands crying around a burning barrel (jawz, bcr, nice aelves, real humies and decently clothed dwarves)...

the reanimant keyword would go well with a construct based elite faction of mad necromancer „Dr.Frankenstein“ some creepy crawly fusion of zombies, corpse cart and then elite brawlers Stiches together in the hellpits of the netherrealms maybe some catapult madness.

really do a soulblight pure vampire faction with bats and wolves and knights as battleline, poor human thralls as fodder, some nice heal d3 wound to SB unit and do d3-d3 MWs to thrall unit within 3-6“. Vamp foot soldiers... it does have an afterthought feeling and is a bit lackluster compared to LoBlood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, AverageBoss said:

Nurgle, LoN, IDK, and DoK were written with 2.0 and all its changes in mind (endless spells, no more reserve points, etc) according to GW themselves. Any books that came out prior to those 4 were not.

The fact, that the change of the Allyrules in case of battalion let me doubt about the point that LoN was written for 2.0

If it would be the case"Deathmarch" would be a Deathrattle Battalion and "Castellans of the Crimson Keep" would be a Soulblight Battalion. It makes no sence that they are Death Battalions, because even with the Deathratte or Soulblight Keyword, they would be Death Battalions as well.

The Battalions were clearly written for the old rules, where you could choose the Allegiance of the Battalion or all units inside the Battalion, not the new rules were all units inside the Battalion become allies, if the Battalion doesn't match the Allegiance.

GW should at least change this with an Errata, if they are not getting a new book.

I don't even play LoN but those Battalions shouldn't be limited to the Grandhost + 3 Legions. They should be playable in there own Allegiance without houseruling.

Edited by EMMachine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/29/2019 at 10:19 PM, ElectricPaladin said:

I suspect that Legions of Nagash will get a new book, but probably not until all the other Death armies that are going to see an update get it. So whatever new Death book is in the works for this year (Soulblight? Deadwalker? Deathrattle? Something else? If you say Tomb Kings I'll send you to the kitten gulag) will come first and either be added to an existing legion (ie. if we get a Soulblight book that's going into the Legion of Blood) or make a new legion (a la Legion of Grief).  Why? Because it's rad as hell and also old and weird, and GW seems pretty dedicated to keeping the rules up to date.

Tomb Kings.

i can’t help myself.

  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/29/2019 at 2:55 PM, EMMachine said:

Even I'm not a LoN Player I would say yes.

And those are my reasons.

  • The Death Allegiance is printed into the book (and should be outdated by the Rulebook 2.0)
  • There is no uniting keyword (except the optional Legions) in the Legions of Nagash Battletome (like for Beasts of Chaos, Gloomspite Gitz or Skaventide). For example Royal Terrorgheist and Royal Zombiedragon do only have the Death Keyword
  • Nighthaunt units aren't up to date anymore after the Errata is telling us that we should use those from the Nighthaunt Battletome
  • Nighthaunt Units had to be added to Legions with the Errata
  • "Deathmarch" is a Death Battalion instead of a Deathrattle Battalion
  • "Castellans of the Crimson Keep" is a Death Battalion instead of a Soulblight Battalion (which makes it impossible to use in a Soulblight Allegiance Army).

The main problem with the last two points is, that Allegiance worked different in the old edition, after you could either take the Allegiance of the Battalion or the Allegiance of the units within the Battalion. Now with the rules that units become allies when the battalion doesn't have the right keyword it hurts mostly those two battalions (especially after it is needless making them Death-Battalions after they would be Deathbattalions as well if they where Deathrattle/Soulblight Battalions)

It is understandable that the Battletome was a little cruid, after it was the first mixed keyword battletome.

As for the Legions. Instead of the following ruling:

It would be better the units that could be part of the legions would be more Keyword based (like in the Legion of Grief, where they sadly forgot the battalions.

the LoN:B GA:death has been outdated. There are a few diffwrences so it's usually ignored, but it's so by the rules.

The disrinction to the FEC id voluntarilly done. Thd,Leguons gave a common keyword, yhe leguon given itself.

The patched nighthaunt army is really a bad taste, moreover when you see the black coach

With yhe forbidden power book in some way you can

Deathmarch is done so in the way that tou can use it with GA:D, otherways it would become even more useless with the deathrattke keyword. Thd FAQs xompletely ruined it making it a waste and a mess

You can use it in Soulblight army as deathmarch cause they are Death, see FAQs

Anyway I totally agree in a reboot. There has been too many changes to the book itself. It has been done a poor work from the beginning with LoN. 

6 warscroll vattalions but if you don't move a mortarch ypu have barely one avalaible (deathmarch) and even it crippled

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, deynon said:

The patched nighthaunt army is really a bad taste, moreover when you see the black coach

Yeah, the thing with the Black Coach is really a bad thing.

1 hour ago, deynon said:

Deathmarch is done so in the way that tou can use it with GA:D, otherways it would become even more useless with the deathrattke keyword. Thd FAQs xompletely ruined it making it a waste and a mess

You can use it in Soulblight army as deathmarch cause they are Death, see FAQs

I don't know if I get you right here (in case of Soulblight it should also be "Castellans of the Crimson Keep" not "Deathmarch"

We are speaking of this part of the FAQ:

Quote

Q: The rules say that a warscroll battalion can include allies
and that they don’t count against the number of allies in the
army. Does this rule only apply to battalions that share the
same allegiance as the army, but that have units from two
different factions (a battalion in a Daughters of Khaine army
that has Daughters of Khaine and Stormcast Eternals units,
for example)?
A: Yes. The faction a warscroll battalion belongs to is
shown on its warscroll, above the title of the battalion.
In addition, the battalion is assumed to belong to the
Grand Alliance that its faction is a part of.
Warscroll
battalions that share the same allegiance as an army
can always be taken as part of the army, and if they
include any allied units, these units do not count against
the limits on the number of allies the army can have
(or against the points limit that can be spent on allies
in a Pitched Battle). An army can include a warscroll
battalion of a different allegiance to the rest of the
army, but if it does so the units in it do count against the
limits on the number of allies the army can have (and
the points for the battalion and the units in it count
against the points limit that can be spent on allies in a
Pitched Battle).

The Problem is, with this FAQ in mind, a Deathmarch Battalion having the Deathrattle Keyword instead of Death could be used nicely in a Deathrattle Army or a Death Army because of the blue marked part, but you can't use it in 2.0 in a Deathrattle Army because of the Death Keyword. Because the Death Keyword is another Allegiance than Deathrattle, so anything inside the Battalion becomes an ally. The Legions do not care because Legions of Nagash shares the Legion Keyword to a Battalion, so if I choose Legion of Sacrament and want to use the Deathmarch Battalion the Battalion gets the Legion of Sacrament Keyword and becomes a Legion of Sacrament Battalion. And if they wouldn't have forgot the part about giving the Legions of Grief Keyword to Battalions too, The Legion of Grief in Forbitten Power would have Access to the Deathmarch Battalion if the Battalion had the Deathrattle Keyword.

On 5/31/2019 at 9:57 PM, Cargo Cult said:

Tomb Kings.

i can’t help myself.

Why can't it simply be Deathrattle + an Undead Constructions faction with a special allegiance (basicly like the Legions). Why does it have to be a second faction with the same units.

 

Edited by EMMachine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...