Jump to content
  • 0

Zombie Merging - Thoughts?


Mc1gamer

Question

I wish GW would specifically address this. They actually have, but you really have to read the FaQ's clearly and I see many discussions where people haven't so I'd love to see everyone's thoughts. It would be nice to have a definitive reply from GW, but in the meantime, lets explore why their merging doesn't violate the matched play rules at all.

They are paid for, not grown beyond the starting values. They are merely merging using their special rule to gain their volume bonus. If you pay for 20 zombies in one unit, and for another 20 in another unit, you've still paid for 40 zombies. Merging doesn't make them larger than starting qty, they are still 40 paid for zombies. Its not like summoning where a new unit that wasn't paid for is brought onto the table.

The recent FAQ's didn't contradict this either:

Death 1.1 (Dec 2016) Q: Can I use the Zombies’ Shambling Horde ability to create a unit that is larger than the normal maximum unit size for a Zombie unit in a Pitched Battle? Does it cost reinforcement points to use the ability? A: No to both.

The answer doesn't say you cannot do it in a pitched battle. It says you can't go past the maximum 60 zombies in a unit using the merge ability, which makes complete sense. Zombies unit size max is 60. You can't take three units of 60 and make a megahorde of 180, but you could take three 20's and make a single 60 (the max). You paid for those 60, and all you did was use a special ability to merge them. No reinforcement points are needed, as ruled in the answer, because you aren't getting anything you haven't paid for. The notion that you don't need to use reinforcement pts to use the ability means you can USE the zombie merging ability in matched play.

The next one confuses some, but it actually wasn't even aimed at Zombies. Here is what was asked and answered:

General's Handbook 1.1 (Dec 2016) Q: The Pitched Battle rules say that I have to include a certain number of Battleline units in my army. If I include them on the roster, can I choose to merge them into a single large unit when I set up? A: No.

This question was derived from a player who wanted to know if he could take several units of grots battleline and merge them before the game actually starts (my understanding was this is how it was asked initially on FB). It wasn't even referring to Zombies and their special ability. If you look at the question, they asked if they could merge their battleine when they set up, before you even start playing, and rightly the answer is no. Zombies use their ability during the game in the hero phase during the game, not before the game actually starts. It might seem like splitting hairs, but there's a huge distinction. This question had nothing to do with the Zombies ability at all and the answer doesn't invalidate their use in matched play. I hear lots of people commenting on this, but I don't think they are really reading the Pitched Battle rules or the FaQ's. Even so, there are sure to be events where the TO decides differently. If you really look at the rules, this should be extremely clear its legal, but like the many many....many...rules that people debate, it can vary from event to event. This was ruled legal by the TO at Holy Wars, it was used in LVO, shown in use on Warhammer TV, but those aren't adequate gauges of valid interpretation, just statements of where its been accepted.

So given the above, what do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

Zombie merging defeats the purpose of battleline, but that doesn't make it any less legal of a tactic. You can field 2-4 units of zombies to satisfy your battleline requirement and them merge them in your first hero phase to get the benefits of them being in one big unit. Besides people who don't play death not liking it there's no real argument against that until another FAQ says otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rokapoke said:

I don't understand the logic of posting a question -- seeking responses -- and then refuting answers you disagree with. Either ask your question or try to convince people that you know the answer already (which is what I'm gathering from your continued responses, @Mc1gamer). This whole thread seems less about getting a rules clarification than it seems about you encouraging your interpretation of the rules. I honestly don't know what the rule really is for matched play, in GW's minds, because of the apparent lack of clarity -- but nobody (outside of the GW FAQ/rules/playtesting teams) knows for certain any more than I do.

Its called having I dialogue. I'm not here trying to provoke but it seems engaging in a conversation in a constructive manner still garnishes these kinds of responses. Why do you bother bother posting then? I'm looking for counter points as I'm not 100% convinced either, and I've said so. I've also said the same as you that GW needs to be more clear. What? I can't introduce my own opinion or participate in the conversation after posing a question? Where do you get your conversational guidelines? lol I'm not instigating or trolling, merely looking for people's PoV. I'm not trying to convince anyone, and if anything its the reverse, looking to see if there's points that might change my own view. How about we keep it civil and don't attack anyone for engaging in a constructive dialogue, hmm? How about we just discuss. and lets please be civil. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Page 108, top of third column.
Maximum size isn't the issue, it's starting size.
Strict reading says no, and doesn't fall foul of the FAQ, which refers to reinforcement points and maximum size. You're attempting to increase the size of a unit beyond its' starting size due to an ability.

If you had two units of 20, and both lost ten, then the units could merge with green lights across the board.

FAQ needs to provide the exemption to the starting size clause.



Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

Buts your not adding the models to a unit your essentially sacrificing two units to create a whole new unit as it dosent specify which one it belongs to.

 

If i had a unit of 30 zombies and a unit of 10 and during the battle the unit of 30 lost 10. Are you saying you would consider that a breach of the rules as even though one unit is staying under its original cap while the other is going above?

Since it dosent specify a dominant unit i would say its a new unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Mc1gamer said:

Nope, you need to reread what I wrote. I disagree with you, but take no offense. As I indicated, no new unit is created, they are simply combining. You still have the same number of models that you paid for. No new unit was lost in the merger, they are all still there. Nothing is violating the matched play rules as you paid for the models and nothing new unpaid for was brought onto the table like open play summoning. You actually lose something in the merge (although less than you gain, but that is the nature of abilities right?) in that you only get the one D6 regen instead of per banner in seperate groups. Nothing is invalid from my pov and if you read the response to the faq, which validates the merge and references Matched Play in its use from the question. The answer is only saying you cannot exceed 60 max in a merge. It does need to be made clearer though as alot of readers don't really think about what is said. I wish GW explained things more clearly, but I guess that's a sinkhole in and of itself. If they had answered that the merge was not applicable in Matched Play, that would be a different thing, but they didn't, they merely indicated that you cannot exceed the max with the simple answer no to the question. But again, as I said, I can disagree with you, just like you clearly disagree with me, and still respect your opinion. They aren't mutually exclusive.

I dont disagree with you though!!

I belive that the ability is valid in matched play for the reasons you gave.

The reasons i gave also validate it as well not disproove it. How are you interpreting what ive said??

Its a new unit therefore the previous unit sizes bare no relvence to the merged one. Therefore agree that it is valid in matched play in my oppinion as the merged unit has a brand new starting size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KHHaunts said:

I dont disagree with you though!!

I belive that the ability is valid in matched play for the reasons you gave.

The reasons i gave also validate it as well not disproove it. How are you interpreting what ive said??

Its a new unit therefore the previous unit sizes bare no relvence to the merged one. Therefore agree that it is valid in matched play in my oppinion as the merged unit has a brand new starting size.

Ah, well maybe I replied to the wrong post loi. Hahaha. Either way, thanks for weighing in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KHHaunts said:

Buts your not adding the models to a unit your essentially sacrificing two units to create a whole new unit as it dosent specify which one it belongs to.

 

If i had a unit of 30 zombies and a unit of 10 and during the battle the unit of 30 lost 10. Are you saying you would consider that a breach of the rules as even though one unit is staying under its original cap while the other is going above?

Since it dosent specify a dominant unit i would say its a new unit.

I respect your opinion but your argument doesn't really hold water. Lets be clear, you paid for those 40 zombies with points. You didn't spring forth an unpaid unit of zombies. You had 40 total, and all you did was combine them to be stronger. Its a unique ability but this is just a different mechanic than casting a spell or using a command ability that enhances a unit. The units didn't go away, and new ones didn't come on board that weren't paid for. Summoning and summoning type mechanics are restricted because they bring forth in Matched Play models and units that weren't paid for which was argued was unbalanced in competitive play. This isn't the case at all with Zombie merges since they were paid for with points. It should have been a clearer response in the faq to prevent any ambiguous interpretations, but the response they gave was pretty telling even so. The answer didn't say you couldn't do it. it said you couldn't go past the 60 max. That means you can but 60 is the max size you can merge to. I wonder if the rules group trades word economy for comprehensive replies at times. I'd prefer more fleshed (no pun intended) out responses myself to eliminate the chance of confusion. I still feel there should be no issue when the units are paid for and an ability in game allows them to merge. You still have the same number of paid for zombies in the end. Until GW follows up with a clearer ruling, that's how I'll play it. We can all decide (with our opponents) how we view the rulings at the club or in our home games, but in a competitive environment, its up to the TO's to rule how it works there. So far all the events I've looked into are allowing it. Unlikely that will be the case everywhere I'm sure, but this is why I inquired as to people's opinions, and thank you to all who take the time to do so :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im still not entirely clear on what the original point of view of the post is?

Yes it could be made clearer by GW but the rules dont say anywhere that you cant merge above the starting unit

as i said in a previous point which unit do you measure starting size from? because if one unit is going over its starting size the surely the "other" unit is being removed from the board. But which one? if one unit had a buff or a mystic shield on it does the whole unit get the new buff?

It seems far more logical for there to be a brand new unit being setup. If thats the case then new starting numbers and such apply

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think by strict reading, we're back to whether merging:

  1. Adds a unit to your army (or replaces an existing one that has been destroyed).
  2. Adds models to an existing unit, or several existing units.
  3. Does something else that isn't covered by points 1. and 2.

If we go with 1, the FAQ directly contradicts the rules (which has happened before), so merging is fine as long as you don't exceed the maximum unit size.

If 2, then you can't go above the units' starting sizes (which makes the FAQ a bit odd and pointless).

If 3, then merging is fine as long as, per the FAQ, you don't exceed the maximum unit size.

Personally, I think the FAQ points to 3, though it could be better worded. Still, I think it would be really weird for them to have worded the FAQ as they did if they meant option 2. The FAQ states that you can't exceed the unit's maximum size — if you couldn't exceed the units starting size, there would be absolutely no need for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, BaldoBeardo said:

In which case you're creating a new unit and the FAQ says that's okay for that ability.
But 'sacrificing units' isn't really a concept in the rules, either.
I have no skin in the game on this, but there are too many "whatabouts".

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

You keep saying that but this is just not the case. Hey, I get it, you don't agree this should be legal, and I can appreciate that, since there's a grey area here and some wording issues that do need to be cleared up. If this was so clear I wouldn't be asking and we wouldn't be having this discussion lol. However there is no creating of a new unit (nothing new has been added to the table, plain and simple) nor are you adding models more than the starting values. You have two units of 20 zombies that you PAID for, you still have 40 when they merge. Its a massively different thing than summoning a new unit that wasn't paid for and not even part of your list, taking your total points value higher than the games max (usually 2k). This does none of that. You have the same points value you started with, nothing more or less. Sure, there's some pushing the envelope on the interpretation, like a thousand other issue, and the debate has points all over, but lets not cloud the discussion by saying things that aren't true. No unit was sacrificed. Models weren't lost. No unit or new models were added. To say otherwise is just trying to twist the discussion towards your pov. I respect it, but lets analyze the specifics not create false logic. The FAQ by virtue of not saying its completely unusable in Matched Play is saying it is, and by saying that the only inhibition is that a merge cannot exceed max unit size, its actually validating that its usable in Matched Play. However, I don't hold 100% to this as there have been not only contradictory rulings in the FaQ's, but even full retractions, so what we need is a clear answer from GW. I feel we've got a reasonable one, but its obviously not clear enough ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mc1gamer said:

I respect your opinion but your argument doesn't really hold water. Lets be clear, you paid for those 40 zombies with points. You didn't spring forth an unpaid unit of zombies. You had 40 total, and all you did was combine them to be stronger. Its a unique ability but this is just a different mechanic than casting a spell or using a command ability that enhances a unit. The units didn't go away, and new ones didn't come on board that weren't paid for. Summoning and summoning type mechanics are restricted because they bring forth in Matched Play models and units that weren't paid for which was argued was unbalanced in competitive play. This isn't the case at all with Zombie merges since they were paid for with points. It should have been a clearer response in the faq to prevent any ambiguous interpretations, but the response they gave was pretty telling even so. The answer didn't say you couldn't do it. it said you couldn't go past the 60 max. That means you can but 60 is the max size you can merge to. I wonder if the rules group trades word economy for comprehensive replies at times. I'd prefer more fleshed (no pun intended) out responses myself to eliminate the chance of confusion. I still feel there should be no issue when the units are paid for and an ability in game allows them to merge. You still have the same number of paid for zombies in the end. Until GW follows up with a clearer ruling, that's how I'll play it. We can all decide (with our opponents) how we view the rulings at the club or in our home games, but in a competitive environment, its up to the TO's to rule how it works there. So far all the events I've looked into are allowing it. Unlikely that will be the case everywhere I'm sure, but this is why I inquired as to people's opinions, and thank you to all who take the time to do so :)

Ok now im confused. you say my oppinion isent right yet your agreeing with my point of view  . . . . . . .

And while were being clear you didnt actually say why my oppinion dosent "Hold Water"   as far as i can see it does as everything i just said is true and nothing in your post contradicted that.

Its a new unit so the combining starting sizes bare no relevence to the merged one therefore the ability is valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KHHaunts said:

Ok now im confused. you say my oppinion isent right yet your agreeing with my point of view  . . . . . . .

And while were being clear you didnt actually say why my oppinion dosent "Hold Water"   as far as i can see it does as everything i just said is true and nothing in your post contradicted that.

Its a new unit so the combining starting sizes bare no relevence to the merged one therefore the ability is valid.

Nope, you need to reread what I wrote. I disagree with you, but take no offense. As I indicated, no new unit is created, they are simply combining. You still have the same number of models that you paid for. No new unit was lost in the merger, they are all still there. Nothing is violating the matched play rules as you paid for the models and nothing new unpaid for was brought onto the table like open play summoning. You actually lose something in the merge (although less than you gain, but that is the nature of abilities right?) in that you only get the one D6 regen instead of per banner in seperate groups. Nothing is invalid from my pov and if you read the response to the faq, which validates the merge and references Matched Play in its use from the question. The answer is only saying you cannot exceed 60 max in a merge. It does need to be made clearer though as alot of readers don't really think about what is said. I wish GW explained things more clearly, but I guess that's a sinkhole in and of itself. If they had answered that the merge was not applicable in Matched Play, that would be a different thing, but they didn't, they merely indicated that you cannot exceed the max with the simple answer no to the question. But again, as I said, I can disagree with you, just like you clearly disagree with me, and still respect your opinion. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Is English your first language? Genuinely! Because you always start your posts disagreeing with a misinterpretation of the post you're replying to and wind up agreeing with it?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

Easy now, don't degenerate into trolling. Its a discussion. I don't agree, and I explain my points. If you cannot be civil and do the same, then don't join the conversation.  You've said your peace and now you are just repeating and getting irate. Time to walk away fella.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy now, don't degenerate into trolling. Its a discussion. I don't agree, and I explain my points. If you cannot be civil and do the same, then don't join the conversation.  You've said your peace and now you are just repeating and getting irate. Time to walk away fella.

Exactly my point.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Page 108, top of third column.
Maximum size isn't the issue, it's starting size.
Strict reading says no, and doesn't fall foul of the FAQ, which refers to reinforcement points and maximum size. You're attempting to increase the size of a unit beyond its' starting size due to an ability.

If you had two units of 20, and both lost ten, then the units could merge with green lights across the board.

FAQ needs to provide the exemption to the starting size clause.



Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Page 108, top of third column.
Maximum size isn't the issue, it's starting size.
Strict reading says no, and doesn't fall foul of the FAQ, which refers to reinforcement points and maximum size. You're attempting to increase the size of a unit beyond its' starting size due to an ability.

If you had two units of 20, and both lost ten, then the units could merge with green lights across the board.

FAQ needs to provide the exemption to the starting size clause.



Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

Page 108 is talking about reinforcement points, as it's under the reinforcement points title. It is saying that abilities that restore models to a unit do not cost points and those abilities cannot exceed the starting amount. The merging spell neither restores models to a unit nor has anything to do with summoning new units, and so nothing in the reinforcement section applies to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Page 108, top of third column.
Maximum size isn't the issue, it's starting size.
Strict reading says no, and doesn't fall foul of the FAQ, which refers to reinforcement points and maximum size. You're attempting to increase the size of a unit beyond its' starting size due to an ability.

If you had two units of 20, and both lost ten, then the units could merge with green lights across the board.

FAQ needs to provide the exemption to the starting size clause.



Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

Yep, I can see the argument but I disagree. The starting value is still the same and doesn't violate the rule in my opinion. But again, its ok that we disagree. I was looking for input on both sides afterall. TO's are the ones who will rule for their events and local games can do what they wish. It would be nice if GW would give a clearer ruling so its played the right way, but hey, I also want a pony lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the logic of posting a question -- seeking responses -- and then refuting answers you disagree with. Either ask your question or try to convince people that you know the answer already (which is what I'm gathering from your continued responses, @Mc1gamer). This whole thread seems less about getting a rules clarification than it seems about you encouraging your interpretation of the rules. I honestly don't know what the rule really is for matched play, in GW's minds, because of the apparent lack of clarity -- but nobody (outside of the GW FAQ/rules/playtesting teams) knows for certain any more than I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...