Skeleton legion & Vanhels interaction

[warhammernerd]

Can someone explain how skeleton legion rule interacts with vanhels? If I have lost 20 skeles before they are chosen to fight, I then roll 20 dice with 4+’s returning. When I select them a second time, do I roll 20 dice again (as indicated) or 20 - amount returned prev roll? And pretty please point me to where I can see this has either been FAQ'd or is covering by some other over arching core rule. Tah. x

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

16 minutes ago, warhammernerd said:

Can someone explain how skeleton legion rule interacts with vanhels? If I have lost 20 skeles before they are chosen to fight, I then roll 20 dice with 4+’s returning. When I select them a second time, do I roll 20 dice again (as indicated) or 20 - amount returned prev roll? And pretty please point me to where I can see this has either been FAQ'd or is covering by some other over arching core rule. Tah. x

There has not been an FAQ entry on this as far as I know. There are arguments for both of the possibilities you already mentioned.

The case for rolling as many dice as you had casualties, twice: This is how battleshock works. If a skeleton dies, is resurrected and dies again, that's still two dead for the purpose of battleshock. Why should resurrection work differently?

The case against: The wording of the rule specifies that if a skeleton died, you roll a die to return that skeleton. You can't return it if it has already been resurrected.

it's up to you which you find more persuasive. It won't break the game either way.

[warhammernerd]

Thanks. You're right of course, neither would break the game - but there is quite a difference over the duration of a game which could easily lead to a unit of 30 skele's staying around for an extra turn of combat Good to see I'm not alone in the being unsure. It's one of those things where I could imagine GW going either way really. 

[KK in HK]

10 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

There has not been an FAQ entry on this as far as I know. There are arguments for both of the possibilities you already mentioned.

The case for rolling as many dice as you had casualties, twice: This is how battleshock works. If a skeleton dies, is resurrected and dies again, that's still two dead for the purpose of battleshock. Why should resurrection work differently?

The case against: The wording of the rule specifies that if a skeleton died, you roll a die to return that skeleton. You can't return it if it has already been resurrected.

it's up to you which you find more persuasive. It won't break the game either way.

To me, the second interpretation is more persuasive since it is based on the wording of the rule itself.

It is very possible that battleshock and skeleton resurrection works differently.

[Liquidsteel]

4 hours ago, KK in HK said:

To me, the second interpretation is more persuasive since it is based on the wording of the rule itself.

It is very possible that battleshock and skeleton resurrection works differently.

The second interpretation is the one that I came to when I read it also, and have played it that way the few times I've used Skeletons (many, many months ago now).

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

Personally, I prefer playing skeleton resurrection like battleshock because I think it's the more overall consistent design. I am also not convinced that the wording "that model" in the rule was put there with any amount of deliberation and getting to the other version of the rule requires a real close reading that hinges on this tiny turn of phrase.

However, if I was a TO, I would still have to rule it the other way, since it has the better claim of being RAW.

[Liquidsteel]

Obviously we have no idea what the intent was.

My assumption is the rules writer either a) did not factor in Vanhel's and thus did not think it would be an issue or b) did factor in Vanhel's and wanted to stop the double dip.

I think it just makes the most sense to me, that you would only roll again for a model if it did not stand up the first time, or had been slain again. So just rolling for however many are eligible to stand up.

Edited February 14, 2022 by Liquidsteel

[Nightseer2012]

I mean, I may start arguing for the more beneficial version.  The amount of points I have to invest to get skeletons to survive combat with literally anything nowadays is getting ridiculous.  Suffering double battleshock for losing models because "that model still died this phase", but not being allowed to roll another resurrect even though "that model still died this phase" is actually a surprisingly frustrating.  I may start arguing that you get one or the other since they are based on the same phrasing.  Like, if you want me to take x2 battleshock, I will roll "all" my resurrections both times if I benefit from Danse Macabre.

Battleshock is already such a weird thing this edition.  I mean hell, I just went through a game this weekend, where the ONLY thing in the whole game that even had to roll battleshock was my x20 skeleton squad, because I lost something like 22 skeletons in one phase, and only survived because of Skeletal Legions.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

5 hours ago, Nightseer2012 said:

Suffering double battleshock for losing models because "that model still died this phase", but not being allowed to roll another resurrect even though "that model still died this phase" is actually a surprisingly frustrating.

That's what I mean when I say that the more favourable reading is more consistent. Otherwise, skeletons exist in the worst of all worlds, where both battleshock and resurrection use the reading that is worse for the skeleton player.

I also agree that AoS is in a strange place as far as battleshock is concerned. Both Nighthaunt and Gravelords suffer pretty badly from it, despite their high bravery. Not that I have anything in principle against skeletons crumbling after a successful enemy attack, but it kinda feels like the Necromancer should be giving them battleshock immunity or something.

[Nightseer2012]

1 minute ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I also agree that AoS is in a strange place as far as battleshock is concerned. Both Nighthaunt and Gravelords suffer pretty badly from it, despite their high bravery. Not that I have anything in principle against skeletons crumbling after a successful enemy attack, but it kinda feels like the Necromancer should be giving them battleshock immunity or something.

I agree in a sense.  I think Bravery/Battleshock just needs a whole rework (which we wont get for years now).  In the majority of games I play, I may see one or two vanilla battleshock rolls.  Most of the time it is "Inspiring Presence", "Oh they are immune to battleshock near this hero/feature", "They are immune to battleshock".  And the rest of the time it is a squad of 3+ multiwound models with 9 Bravery, and you finally manage to kill one, but they are such a low model count that battleshock doesn't matter, because they are dead by the time they have to roll it.  That last one is very prevalent now in 3rd ed with the strength of save stacking+multi wound models.

Skeletons should 100% roll a battleshock after losing over half their unit, no question there, but at least let me roll twice for the models you are penalizing me for losing twice.  Especially after you took away all my shiny +1 attack stacking to skeletons (admittedly over powered)... just let them do 1 thing well, plz thank you.

[warhammernerd]

Sounds like their is consensus about the more favourable option being the way to play. I agree that without this, they are pretty poo and you already have to invest a sizeable amount of points to make them vaguely worth taking. These makes them at least vaguely decent.

[Gothmaug]

On 2/14/2022 at 2:00 PM, Nightseer2012 said:

Skeletons should 100% roll a battleshock after losing over half their unit, no question there, but at least let me roll twice for the models you are penalizing me for losing twice.  Especially after you took away all my shiny +1 attack stacking to skeletons (admittedly over powered)... just let them do 1 thing well, plz thank you.

Skeletons are mindless automatons animated from the mortal remains of a dead creature who's soul has already passed on to whatever god(s) lay claim to it. They're already dead, and should be wholly immune to battleshock!. 

 

Overall I feel that Battleshock in AoS needs a complete overhaul. Too many armies either wholly immune to it, or are utterly devastated by it. Death/Chaos demons are all 10+ (or immune) and basically ignore battleshock, elite armies with lots of MSU like stormcast are for all intents and purposes unaffected, and armies like Grots and Orks are completely wrecked by it, and are forced to hoard command points to try and mitigate the losses. Dropping all units by 1-2 bravery across the board might actually help make the battleshock phase more relevant. but thats an argument for another day. 

 

In my local meta, the first time skellies activate we roll once for every skellie model killed that combat phase. If they activate a second time, we roll again for every model still missing PLUS any additional models that died since the last activation. So if your 30 man block lost 20 skellies, we'd roll 20 dice and bring back 10 for a total of 20 skellies in the unit. THen lets say 6 more are lost due to the enemy. On the second activation we roll 16 dice (10 for the ones that failed to ressurect the first time, plus 6 for the new skellies that perished since the previous activation).  No idea if that's the intent, but its what the group settled on. We also modified battleshock across the board to not count ressurected models, no matter what army you play. Thematically its a morale check, right? If at the end of combat you look around and none of your buddies are currently dead, then troop morale is going to be pretty high.