Reading some of the posts it seems that it's been proven that a character that takes up a rare and character slot now use character slot? If I missed something on the other threads just yell at me.
This from the Tomb Kings FAQ:
Ignore “Choosing the Casket of Souls also uses up a Rare unit
choice.” Add “The Priest becomes part of the crew, and the
points value of the Casket of Souls is added to his points cost.”
So in this sense, the Goblin Hewer takes up space from the character points? But maybe not because it's not a mount for anything but a rare-type artillery unit with a character in it? So just a rare?
I think my group has decided to make it a rare slot unit, but any other concrete answers out there?
Since dogs of war wasn't given an errata, there are no concrete answer, no. I would count it as a rare choice, seems more sensible.
Given the precedent of only counting the Character, and ignoring the Rare, I think Hewer, Truthsayer and Asarnil all count against Characters.
Asarnil and Truthsayers ARE characters, nothing else. The Hewer however, is only a war machine. It's as much a character as Bronzino's Galloper Guns.
Except, Bronzio says he costs a Rare, whereas the Hewer says it's a Character.
Besides, you're really getting Asarnil for Deathfang - you'd never take him if he were on a regular horse.
(07-14-2010 05:45 PM)M4cR1II3n Wrote: [ -> ]Asarnil and Truthsayers ARE characters, nothing else. The Hewer however, is only a war machine. It's as much a character as Bronzino's Galloper Guns.
Technically speaking right, Asarnil should come from rare. He's a rare slot that takes up an additional hero slot. Doesn't matter that he's also a character, every single regiment of renown has a character that doesn't take up your character allowance.
So it's the hero slot that should be lopped off the end.
Special characters have a similar wording I believe, in that they are a lord choice that also takes up an additional hero slot. (Fairly sure that's what it says, but at work, don't have it on me).
The Goblin Hewer I would argue should come from rare as well, but due to the wording it's a grey area. It's obviously supposed to be a rare choice as it was one in the Slayer army.
The other grey area's are the Truthsayer, Dark Emissary, Serpent Priestess, and possibly Gotrek and Felix and the Witch Hunters (I don't have their rules, so don't know what the wording on them is). I know the Truthsayer just states he takes up a Hero and a Rare slot. To be honest, Truthsayer, Dark Emissary and Serpent Priestess should probably take hero slots as they're true characters (Even if it goes against what I think about Asarnil above, but his wording is different).
Don't know what to make of Gotrek and Felix and Witch Hunters, but I've never heard of them being used anyway.
And that's the whole problem of GW not making a FAQ here.
What the various Dogs of War multi-slot units *should* be vs. what other precedent sets vs. what's unclear due to badly-worded units that don't follow precedent.
I don't think the precedent is set that much. All the examples I've read (Corpse cart/Casket of souls) are basically mounts or delivery systems for standard hero slotted characters in their armies. Much like how if you add a dragon to a Vamp lord that dragon becomes part of the cost. Or like our pegasus.
Buuuut Asarnil and Malakai are not stand alone characters in any way. What we need to do is write GW for one Regiment of renown FAQ for 8th edition. Only one, that's all I want. Just this answer and I'm perfectly fine with everything. They still sell a lot of them (just bought the Hewer before 8th edition came out) so they must imagine people will still want to use them!
Anyone know the way to request a answer to a question? Is there a email for White Dwarf or anything we could possibly gang up on as a forum?
Most likely all you'll get from GW customer support is "We don't support those units anymore". All this stuff is back from 6th edition of course. If they're helpful, they may offer a suggestion, but it wouldn't be official in any sense.
Personally I am just going to wait and see if GW Italy bring out a FAQ or not before stressing out about this. It would seem a bit silly to upload the CD and Dogs of War to their website then not bring out a FAQ to make them useable in the latest edition.
I suppose I'm in no rush though as I'm taking a break from Dogs for some Beastmen anyway.
I've convinced the guys in my local store that Asarnil and Deathfang are split anong their victory points - 130 points of Hero for Asarnil, and 330 points of Rare for Deathfang.
Means they can be taken at 2000 points, if one was so inclined.
Did someone mention a Serpent Priestess? Where was that from, I've never heard of it...
Serpent Priestess was in WD 307 IIRC, I have the rules if anyone is interested.
(07-22-2010 04:50 PM)M4cR1II3n Wrote: [ -> ]Serpent Priestess was in WD 307 IIRC, I have the rules if anyone is interested.
I wouldn't mind a look. Sounds Lustrian...
PM'd
Could I have a look, too? I'm writing a set of campaign rules for Lustria atm.
Sure, just PM me your email and I'll send it to you (goes for anyone who wants the rules).
I am just REALLY not seeing the confusion here. Maybe someone can help me see where this gets so complicated?
Lets look at Asarnil, for instance:
(Taken from the 2002 Warhammer Annual Dogs of War Entry)
"Asarnil the Dragonlord can be hired as a RARE Unit in Dogs of War armies. Note that he will take up one of your Hero slots as well as the Rare Unit slot."
How is it not clear that Asarnil is a rare choice choice who also used up a hero choice, and under the new rules, is JUST a rare choice?
Because most people see an Elf on a Dragon, and automatically assume that he's a hero/lord slot. He should be a rare slot I agree.
The confusion comes from units like Truthsayer and the Goblin Hewer that state they take up a hero and a rare slot. Not that they're a hero slot which takes up an additional rare slot.
Hero is first, so we'll say "hero" but you're right.
I guess we'll have to use "common sense" and say that a character unit who is a wizard should count as a hero, while a war machine crewed by Dwarf Slayers should be a rare.
Although Asarnil probably should be at least a hero choice, the writing is clear enough that we can say he's a rare. At least he can't be taken in 1000 points now.
A High Elf lord is a lord choice. he may take a dragon, which takes up an additional hero choice. -> 8th ed, he is just a lord.
I can understand where someone looks at Asarnil and thinks 'clearly a character', but the rules just don't support it.
The vast majority are very clear.
Where does it say he's a Lord, apart from the name "dragonlord". He only has 2W, which is more akin to a hero character.
None of the other Regiments of Rnown take hero slots. Ricco, Roderigo, Al Muktar, Beorg, Golfag, Ruglud, Mengil, etc, do not take hero slots, so neither should Asarnil and Malakai? They are no more potent than any other RoR characters.
Asarnil,s rules say Deathfang is not a character. Therefore the dragon at least should be rare. Although to be RAW about it, Asarnil should be a character and Deathfang rare.
Malakai is a rather mediocre character, and surely should not take a hero slot. We don't have the breakdown of costs and therefore cannot slit the cost between rare and hero. Rare seems most logical to me.
(07-26-2010 03:32 PM)M4cR1II3n Wrote: [ -> ]Where does it say he's a Lord, apart from the name "dragonlord". He only has 2W, which is more akin to a hero character.
I worded that EXTREMELY poorly, so I apologize for the confusion.
My example was supposed to be that if a Lord Choice from the High Elf codex was to take a Dragon, in previous editions it would cost a lord (for the Character) and an additional hero, but now ONLY costs the lord, since the additional choice no longer matters, and thus all points come out of the Lord category.
Following this, Asarnil takes up a Rare and a hero (just like the High Elf takes up the Lord and a hero), and so now only takes up the rare, with all his points coming from the rare.
The confusion came from me using the High Elf Prince on Dragon as my example, which is because that is my other army, so I am most familiar with it. In fact, I was arguing for the exact opposite of what it seemed like.