I'd say it's starting value would be would it was created at. It started the game when it came it at that size you rolled.

Of course just take right upgrades and you won't care about starting size.

I would say no. The starting size is the size that it was created at. So if you go another necromancer to raise a unit, then you used your master necro to raise it further... you could do that.



Zombies dont care about starting size. Brotha.

I saw it as the 2nd one. It kinda doesn't make sense that you can have both a lord choice of vamp / necro and yet you have to have the vamp as your general.

That's actually a really interesting one. I'm leaning towards the first one, based on the wording you've quoted above. i.e. the General model is determined as the Wizard with the highest Ld value according to the rules in the BRB and Vamp book. There is then the additional requirement that this model must (in the imperative form) select the Lore Of Vampires.

I'm trying to think of another rule that might act as a precedent for this one, but can't... The old 6th edition High Elf 'Intrigue At Court' rule perhaps...?

I don't have my book in front of me, what's the respective Ld value of a Vampire / Vampire Lord now vs a Necromancer / Necromancer Lord? Is there any combination where you could potentially end up with a 'weird' General / character set up?

I'm waiting for the FAQ on this one. I've been playing the first but I hope its the second. Otherwise there was almost no point to have shadows and death on the vampire lord.

Quick question, it's going to sound noobish are cairn wraiths still skirmishers?

They are not.

hahaha holy crap i went to all the effort of making up a base/movement tray for them hahha

Regarding the general debate your general is selected after your list is created... your wizzard lore is chossen durring list creation... therefore you can invalidate a character from the vamp list for being the general by a making him a bsb durring creation (vampire) or by buying him/her a different spell lore

You cant raise a unit of skeletons. Only zombie units can be created by the raise dead spell. Only the necro with master of the dead can raise the skeletons above their starting number.

Mind = blown


learn something new everyday, never stop learning with this game tho

Yes you can raise a unit of skeletons, have a read of the rules for the raise dead spell. The boosted version of the spell allows you to raise skellies.

"The caster can choose to summon 2D6+3 Skeleton Warriors instead. I f he does so, the casting value is increased to 14+"

Damn, pays to read the upgraded versions of the spell then too huh! I stand corrected.

Derp, I had skeletons in my head for some reason so was thinking along those lines.

Err no. I cannot believe there is even debate on this issue. Your general in the vampire counts army is the Wizard with the highest leadership. That wizard is then forced to take Lore of Vampires. It is a simple as that. You cannot invalidate your generals choice by taking another lore on your Vampire Lord, the general is forced to take Lore of Vampires.

Yeah, that would actually make th list illegal. General basically goes as 'Is this your highest leadership wizard? He's the general, and takes lore of the vampires'. Want to give him a different lore, or something that will invalidate him as the general (BSB)? Illegal army. He's still classed as the general but you're giving him an option he's not allowed to take.

Being the wizard in the army with the highest leadership makes him the general, and thus confers limitations on what he can take.

Due to your general being selected after list creation, and the vampire Rule book stating your general must be a wizard with the lore of vampires and your lore chosen durring list creation this means that your vampire lord can take lore of shadow your hero level vampire can be a bsb and leaving your lvl 1 necro with lore of vampires gives you the choice of the lvl1 necro for your general after list creation is done.

The lord can't be as he is a different lore, the vampire can't be as he is a bsb and that leaves the necro as your general, in no way does this mean durring list creation must you make your vampire lord have the lore of vampires..

(personally I would give it to him anyway if those where the only 3 characters being taken it would be better for the army but it's not a forced requirement)

Basically see it like this just as a bsb would invalidate you for being the general choosing a lore other than the lore of vampires will also invalidate you from being the general.

EDIT: SUBNOTE: if you didn't have any wizzards with the lore of vampires your list would be illegal, as long as you have at least one your list is fine.

p.107 "The General is the character in your army with the highest Leadership. If more than one character share the highest Leadership value, you must choose which one is the General and tell your opponent before deploying your army."

From this it seems pretty ambiguous as to if you can give the vamp shadows or death and then have the master necro as general. I'll be waiting for a FAQ and in the meantime using the highest leadership.

Yep I will stick with my original thought on this that your general is the wizard with highest Ld and he must take lore of vamps, until a FAQ comes out that says differently. I think the wording of it is quite strong towards selecting lore of vamps for the model after you have worked out who the general is.

I agree that you work out the General first (during list creation), then they must choose lore of vamps. I disagree that it has to be the character with the highest Ld as imo the rule "Your army's General must be a Wizard" is a replacement not an addition to the rule in the Brb. if it was an addition it would read It would read Your army's General must be the Wizard with the highest LD. or follow the rules for selecting a general found in the rule book with the following exceptions

in other words you can pick any wizard to be your general.

The thing that I'd use to support my point with this is that it would seem a bit odd for a level 1 Necromancer to be the general when there is also an uber strong vamp lord as well. I know that this is a rules as intended point but it is the Vampire Counts book. Also there is a good reason to have your general as the highest Ld model as well so you can swift reform easily with your units and also to keep your vargheists in check as well.

If it was a replacement for that rule it would tell you that it was a replacement for that rule. As it is written the Vampires General must be a wizard, with the highest ld and they must take the Lore of Vampires.



Easter is still over a month away.

A Wood Elf Lord who has been provided with the Alter aspect is no longer eligible to be the general, even if he has the highest leadership.

I can't see why you wouldn't take the same approach with a Vampire Lord that has been selected with a Lore of Magic that isn't the lore of Vamps.

The whole point with the general needing to have the Lore of Vamps is that they need to have the knowledge and ability to raise and control undead.

It could be possible for a Vampire to be undead but rely on magic-using underlings to raise and power the host. The concept of General in those circumstances would be the person who is controlling the magical strings rather than the hero directing the battle.

THIS.

it's like if your just taking hero level characters and you go a bsb and a mage, where your bsb has a higher leadership, are you saying you can't make him a bsb just because he has a higher leadership?

same reasoning as me saying its replaces general selection from the book



actuality as its written is "Your army's General must be a Wizard". with highest LD is another rule. so it all comes down to if it is a supplement to the general rule or a replacement.

I can also think of fluff reasons why he would be in charge of maintaining the horde while the vamps attention is else where. the necro might even be a lv2 and the vamp a lv 1.

gaming wise there are advantages especially with the march bubble and protect of the general. but there is disadvantages such as swift reform or facing tomb kings casket, or even other vamps banshees

I'm not sure that it works that way. The wood elf rule says that if you take that option you cannot be the general, same as a BSB. However, the vampire rule states "Your army's General must be a Wizard. If he is able to choose a spell lore, he must use the Lore of Vampires (see page 60)." I think its about the "If he is able to choose a spell lore, he must" part that could change it.

Again, I'm not saying it means the vamp lord has to be the general, just that it is ambiguous.

I realise it's a different rule, but you aren't told to ignore it or replace it anywhere so I added it there for the sake of making my point easier to understand.

If you read the rules from the rule book for choosing your general and add them to the rules in the Vampires book - which don't tell you to change anything from the rule book - what you end up with are the rules for choosing a Vampire general.

Also... what about if you take forbidden lore on your vampire lord? and choose a different lore....?

Army book trumps Rule book, it is the way rulings have been made for years. I don't think the two rules get added together because it dose not say in the vamp book.

if we are being consistent with every other ruling in the game I come up with "your General must be a wizard".

The rules aren't mutally exclusive and the army book doesn't say to ignore the normal rules for choosing your general either?

Look what a started



I dunno, game as meant to played, ide say VC lord has to be Vampires, yet again a loop hole GW has missed until FAQ is out,

I wonder if anyone will "put there hand up" like in ogres in the FAQ and allow it, but tell you to be a sport and don't do it cause surely there's no advantage...

>.>
<.<

I dunno...

I kinda see a vampire slaving a necromancer to do his bidding etc... Raising his undead horde etc.

lol but they have already dealt with jerviss' pet peeve in a box out

I'm surprised this is even a debate... Given the rules for crumbling etc, do you even want your General to be someone other than your hard as nails Vampire Lord in the average game?

I can understand in larger games where you're able to fit a rock solid combat Vamp and a casty Necromancer, but given the expensive points cost of most Vampire Lords (even if they are only kitted for combat, and not leveled for magic), it's still not something I'd want to throw around willy nilly without being concerned about the consequences of losing him...


Another question though: In a smaller game, can I take a Vampire Hero as my only wizard, and make him a BSB?

no, because Bsbs can't be your general...........and you need a wizard general

The main reason that I can think of is for the marching rules. A fighty vampire in a unit of knights may not always need to march and won't be in the centre of the army. It would be very helpful to have him on the flank. The other reason is that you can choose other lores of magic. For example its a way to get shadow magic or beasts or some other useful lore into your army.

You determine your general, then pick a lore. Otherwise why would it state that if your general has a choice of lore he must pick vamps? How could a General ever pick anything if you've played it the other way around, and had already picked all your lores before nominating a General?

But what about when I purchase forbidden lore and have to select what lore of magic I am taking?

Don't buy Forbidden Lore for your General its effectively an illegal choice.

I know and doesn't that sound stupid? haha

(not you, the fact that a VC power is redundant on anyone but on hero's)

Eh, you can field multiple Vampire Lords. And, well, it makes more sense than the possibility of a VC army with no one able to raise the dead, doesn't it?

Well... in smaller games? Where you simply cannot fit multiple vampire lords? Then no, it seems stupid that you can take forbidden lore and not be able to use it.

I am just saying that, I think the general has to be a wizard harry with vampire lore. Like most people here. Not, a wizard harry with vampire lore and the highest leadership.

What do you base that on? How do you think they should have worded it if they wanted to force the highest leadership wizard in the army to take the Lore of Vampires? Like, seriously, what wording would it have taken to get you to read it that way?

1) Which general to take? Vampire Lord? Or Necromancer Lord?

The way you build your army and how you play will make the choices for you IMO. So if you want a fast attack portion in your army, then having a mounted Lord on the flank is the way to go. To my mind the better option is to take both a Vampire Lord and a 4th Level Necromancer. You are then free to send forth your combat lord and IF he dies then at least the game is not over. Also a fighty combat lord is not going to go BOOM from a miscast that often.


2) The Nightshroud on mounted characters?

I'd seriously look at it on a mounted Vampire Lord, with a good rerollable armour save. The Necromancer should never get into combat so I think a ward save would be a better bet as an alround defense that works out side of combat as well.



3) Skeletons with Hand Weapons? Or Spears?

Skeletons are not going to win you combat on the whole, I think they are more of a holding action rather then a winning option vs most troops. Spears are only good if you are deep ranked so my opinion is Hd Wp Sh option as being better as its first cheaper, so 60 HdWp skeletons cost about the same as 48 spear armed skelies. Also the parry save means every 6 saves you two skeletons because it's one less crumble you take. This could mean the difference between units evaporating or not.

4) Are Grave Guard still worth it?

They are worth it IMO, the stat line with T4 heavy armour & again I'd say shield magical attacks from thier weapons w killing blow. They may be twice as expensive but will win combats on thier own and crumble far less then skeletons. So worth thier points.

5) Is there a downside to Hexwraiths?

Yup IMO they are expensive at 150pts and when trying to fit everything into an army this starts to hurt trying to put them in. Are they worth it, certainly are, will cause all sorts of headaches for many opponents. I think using them well could be tough at times. Like all the vampire army, you can't just push it forward and win. .

Spears are free so the cost argument is moot. In my experience the 6+ Parry Save if worth more than a extra couple of S3 attacks at WS2.

Doesn't the codex trump rulebook? So simply putting "Generals are picked as per Warhammer Rulebook"

That would not require the General to have the Lore of Vampires. How would you write it so as to require the General to be the highest Ld model but also a spellcaster who knows the Lore of Vampires (because otherwise Wight Kings end up the general sometimes).

Full wording now, don't be shy.

I think what he is saying is because in the vc book it says your general must be a wizard (who knows lore of vamps) it invalidates the highest leadership part.

that's what I am saying.

Please explain how a wight king can be a general?