TGheist/ZDragon in matched play

[Gotrek]

Since both monsters are listed under flesh eater courts heading does that mean we have to use the warscrolls in the FEC book, the ones without a summon value? Not sure if there was a ruling on this at Warlords or whatever.

[Nico]

I could be wrong but I believe so yes. Those are the ones being referenced and those are the ones with those points values for matched play.

[deynon]

hey aare anyway avalaible. By GW GAQ you can use the profile you prefer. Moreover and the name of the unit is what mind. 

Thee classification about FEC in which is classificed doesn't count, otherways you'd not be able to use Vlad, Isabella, and so on (and a lot of other units).

The Death manual is still valid. 

Simply if you deply them you have to clarofy i the rooster which version it is and ones you evoke it can be only the beasts version.

[Solaris]

I disagree with Deynon. In the General's Handbook, the one that has a points cost is the FEC version. As such, if you use the points cost, you have to use that version. The Death manual is valid, but all warscrolls in it don't have a points cost. Those that don't cannot be used in matched play.

[deynon]

1 hour ago, Solaris said:

I disagree with Deynon. In the General's Handbook, the one that has a points cost is the FEC version. As such, if you use the points cost, you have to use that version. The Death manual is valid, but all warscrolls in it don't have a points cost. Those that don't cannot be used in matched play.

Based on what? I challenge you to say that the amount of pints referred to Vald  VOn Carstein, Isabbella, Konrad, the VLoTA are usable so. The points they are referring to is the Vampire Counts Faction in the Compendium,  but No one of them has the the Keyword related to it...

Ah, and before you say that there is the profile in the app I want to remember you that tha Charrion pit warscroll battalion it referres to the Strigoi Ghoul to be useful...a  pointed warscroll battalion that has a unit that doesn't have a model to refer to (ehi..you can't say that the Ghoul King it's the same thing...).

Moreover the Warscroll Terrorgheist have it's point cost. Bost the FEC:B version and the GA:D are named the same Terrogheist. So how you can say that one has the referring by points and the other not? 

And with the Ghoul King, horrors, and so on? They are both in the GA:D and FEC:B. And they are both with the same name, even with the same alliagence...so...wich one is correct? Cause you said too that GA:D is still valid.

Moreover there is the FAQ that allow you to choose which version to utilize if the warscroll has the same name.

And even if you talk about keywords...beh, both versions have the keyword "terrorgheist" in it (and so for the others).

[nuttyknatty]

I'm with you @Solaris. 

Ultimately you can choose whichever - this is AoS after all - but I'll always use the latest version a warscroll. Any other option may be misinterpreted as attempting to gain an advantage by purely choosing the most powerful warscroll available. 

My advice? Always go with the least contentious option. Saves a lot of misunderstandings.

[Solaris]

The most recent one is valid. With how GW does things now, things gradually get replaced, and the old warscrolls go obsolete. I wouldn't mind if I played someone who wanted to use an older version, but strictly speaking I think the most recent one is the correct one to use. Now here is how I see it. There are three versions of the Terrorgheist warscroll: one in the Vampire Counts Compendium, one in the Grand Alliance: Death book under the Beasts from the Grave faction, and one in the Flesh-Eater Courts book. If you look in the General's Handbook, there is no Terrorgheist in the Compendium section, there is no Beasts from the Grave section, and the only Terrorgheist listed is in the Flesh-Eater Courts faction. As such, strictly speaking, the one that you can pay 320 points for to use in Matched Play must clearly be the FEC version, which also happens to be the most recent one. That's how I would rule it if I were a tournament organizer. If it's just for casual games with friends, use whichever, I'm sure they are comparable strength wise.

[nuttyknatty]

Agree completely @Solaris

[Grimnaud]

14 minutes ago, Solaris said:

The most recent one is valid. With how GW does things now, things gradually get replaced, and the old warscrolls go obsolete. I wouldn't mind if I played someone who wanted to use an older version, but strictly speaking I think the most recent one is the correct one to use. Now here is how I see it. There are three versions of the Terrorgheist warscroll: one in the Vampire Counts Compendium, one in the Grand Alliance: Death book under the Beasts from the Grave faction, and one in the Flesh-Eater Courts book. If you look in the General's Handbook, there is no Terrorgheist in the Compendium section, there is no Beasts from the Grave section, and the only Terrorgheist listed is in the Flesh-Eater Courts faction. As such, strictly speaking, the one that you can pay 320 points for to use in Matched Play must clearly be the FEC version, which also happens to be the most recent one. That's how I would rule it if I were a tournament organizer. If it's just for casual games with friends, use whichever, I'm sure they are comparable strength wise.

I agree, and I've argued this in other threads. The different versions have significant changes in their abilities, which would make it wrong IMO to be able to choose which one you want to pay the same point cost for. The old versions of the TG/ZD could for instance be summoned, something the FEC version can not. 

[deynon]

The problem is: considering FEC units it can be referred to.

But the GA:D still remain mainstream.

Moreover  technically Terrorgheist and DZ non GA:D are not FEC units.

If in the future it exit another Battletome that publish another Dragon Zombie with different rules and it's alliangence in another army and they don't give the points what do you do? You can't play it?

You are forgetting that terror and DZ have the same name, but diffferent Keywords. At the same time if you summon the DZ or terror they can't have boost for units with FEC Keyword involved cause they're not such.

Moreover the same GW released a FAQ saying that you can play whichever version you prefer.

 

I'm agree that the last version should be the best, but if for FEC units like GK and so on I can be solidal, for units that have different refferrings as Terror and DZ  I'm not able cause they are not FEC units, they have certain rules in that Battletome. Simply it.

 

And even about the other units. Thinks about Tempestors units who have even 3 or 4 different versions? And some in also more Battletomes?

[patsfan32]

I very much disagree with most people's ideas here. I highly doubt that GW wanted to make those 2 unavailable for summoning in a GA: Death army. Makes no sense. Especially how hard they are to get out unless you run Nagash and to a lesser extent Arkhan. This is the only place ive heard of only using the FEC scroll as being a thing. I always see Death armies summoning these things in matched play.

[Grimnaud]

2 hours ago, patsfan32 said:

I very much disagree with most people's ideas here. I highly doubt that GW wanted to make those 2 unavailable for summoning in a GA: Death army. Makes no sense. Especially how hard they are to get out unless you run Nagash and to a lesser extent Arkhan. This is the only place ive heard of only using the FEC scroll as being a thing. I always see Death armies summoning these things in matched play.

Why not? Take the Varghulf for example. It could be summoned in the VC compendium. Now the Vargulf doesn't exist in matched play at all. It doesn't have points. While it is fine to use that warscroll in open play, as the GW FAQ states that you are free to choose whatever version of the warscrolls you please. In matched play however, the Varghulf does not exist. Instead we get the Varghulf Courtier, which does have points, and can be played in matched play.

 

17 hours ago, deynon said:

The problem is: considering FEC units it can be referred to.

But the GA:D still remain mainstream.

Moreover  technically Terrorgheist and DZ non GA:D are not FEC units.

The GAD Beasts of the Grave version are not FEC units. However, the Beasts of the Grave are not included in the Generals Handbook. Isn't it therefore more logical to conclude that the Beasts of the Grave version does not have points and therefore cannot be played in matched play rather than shoehorning it in just because GW didn't change the name? It is for example clear that the old Varghulf does not exist in matched play.

If in the future it exit another Battletome that publish another Dragon Zombie with different rules and it's alliangence in another army and they don't give the points what do you do? You can't play it?

Exactly. If it is not given points, then you cannot play that version in matched play.

You are forgetting that terror and DZ have the same name, but diffferent Keywords. At the same time if you summon the DZ or terror they can't have boost for units with FEC Keyword involved cause they're not such.

Moreover the same GW released a FAQ saying that you can play whichever version you prefer.

Again, the FAQ was released prior to the Generals Handbooks release, and therefore must refer to open play, as that was all that existed at that time.

I'm agree that the last version should be the best, but if for FEC units like GK and so on I can be solidal, for units that have different refferrings as Terror and DZ  I'm not able cause they are not FEC units, they have certain rules in that Battletome. Simply it.

Yup. Rules. Fine for open play. No points though. Not for the Beasts of the Grave TG/ZD. You can only play those in matched play by claiming that the references in the GHB must refer to all the versions of warscroll with the same name and that you should get to choose which one.

And even about the other units. Thinks about Tempestors units who have even 3 or 4 different versions? And some in also more Battletomes?

Newest one under the corresponding heading in the Generals Handbook IMO.

 

[deynon]

@Grimnaud the FAQ is Valid till exist, so your argumntation it's not valid. 

And about your critic about the version...as I said you can0t refer to the location they are referred too, or you could not use Vlad von carstein and so on. The name of the unit gives the amount of points so they have the points. I yet said it, such a thing can0t be used to abolish them

EDIT: moreover have you noticed that in the app there are both the versions?

[Grimnaud]

On 10/15/2016 at 7:21 PM, deynon said:

@Grimnaud the FAQ is Valid till exist, so your argumntation it's not valid. 

I never said that the FAQ wasn't valid. It is very much valid for open play, which it what it refers to. I'm just saying that it isn't referring to a style of play that was not available when the FAQ was released. 

And about your critic about the version...as I said you can0t refer to the location they are referred too, or you could not use Vlad von carstein and so on. The name of the unit gives the amount of points so they have the points. I yet said it, such a thing can0t be used to abolish them
 

Sure you can. Vlad is given points under the Compendium Pitched Battle Profiles, subheading Vampire Counts. You can use him as much as you like. But the Generals handbook doesn't include everything. Have you noticed for instance that there are four different entries for Wight Kings in the Generals Handbook? Two under GA:Death, subheading Deathrattle, and two under Compendium Pitched Battle Profiles, subheading Vampire Counts. The latter two states that they are Wight King on Skeletal Steed, and Wight King with Infernal Banner respectively. What's interesting here, is that there was never any war scrolls for Wight King on Skeletal Steed, and Wight King with Infernal Banner. Just one for a Wight King, that included the option of giving them a steed and/or an Infernal Banner. The new war scroll under GA:Death, subheading Deathrattle has the exact same option. In fact, the new war scroll is better in several ways. It has a command ability, and makes an extra attack with the skeletal steed. So if GW intended for you to be able to choose the version of the war scroll you wished, why are there three entries for what is essentially the same war scroll? In my opinion it's because you're not supposed to choose. The ZD and TG were moved over to FEC to fill out the faction, and the generals handbook does not give points for the old versions because the old versions are not supposed to be usable in matched play. The GHB is not used to abolish models, but it is used to exclude old versions of war scrolls from matched play.

EDIT: moreover have you noticed that in the app there are both the versions?

 

Sure. Why shouldn't they be? The app is for both open, narrative, and matched play. The points are only for matched play. And the older versions of the ZD/TG war scrolls do not have points.

 

[Oppenheimer]

My solution? Forget matched play. Have you and your opponent agree on what each of you bring. Problem solved.

[deynon]

Ehm..to remind you: in the cmpendium there are the point for the whith king on skeleton stted.

Moreover do you want to laugh? In the AoS app the terrorgheist with the point is the beast and not the FEC one^^

They are two different units, one is beat, the other is FEC, simply, no moving or other things. They have the same name, two different profiles but the same points.

[Grimnaud]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree until GW officially weighs in  on the matter. 

[Tittliewinks22]

I have the digital copy of GHB, so i can see points listed on the units under "my battle" tab.

The Beasts of the Grave TG and ZD have listed points that is the same as the FEC version according to the gw app.

 

Edit: removed point value