Invocation of Nehek

Sooo, ive been reading arround and evryone is taking a shit of how crazy the new VCs are, BUT, there seems to be a little problem .. Invocation of Nehek doesnt seem to work if the unit is engaged in hand to hand.. this is HUGE, as it means that the VC player cant ressurect the unit over and over if its engaged. Apparently GW left out the portion on the spell that says that "It can be cast into hand to hand" SOOOO, a per the rulebook, the spell HAS to state that it can be cast into hand to hand.

This is Great ! at least from my point of view

Sweet, GW left the cheese out!

I think that puts VC's on a more level playing ground, because you've got to think about it. After a few turns those Vampires won't be able to cast half of those spells if they are locked in combat!

But that is good to note.

It also forces VC players to have to make a more difficult choice for their necromancers between ION, Raise Dead and the Dance Mc.

luis the young wrote:Sooo, ive been reading arround and evryone is taking a shit of how crazy the new VCs are, BUT, there seems to be a little problem .. Invocation of Nehek doesnt seem to work if the unit is engaged in hand to hand.. this is HUGE, as it means that the VC player cant ressurect the unit over and over if its engaged. Apparently GW left out the portion on the spell that says that "It can be cast into hand to hand" SOOOO, a per the rulebook, the spell HAS to state that it can be cast into hand to hand.

This is Great ! at least from my point of view

Sounds good, except that in the last paragraph it states (and I'm paraphrasing here to prevent copyright issues):

"Models that are resurrected within a unit on the turn it charges do not receive a bonus for charging in the following close combat."

Well, if the spell is cast and effective against a unit that has charged, it must go off on a unit that is in close combat, especially if getting a charge bonus will matter. I'm sure it was an oversight when the book was being put together (not that GW would ever overlook something as specific as the particulars of a rule) and it will get FAQ'd within a few months to allow it to go off in combat (at least that's my feeling based on the last paragraph of the spell description). Gotta love how precise GW is with it's language.

Either way, for the 'Ard Boyz tournament, I will go with the default position in the rulebook that the spell must specifically state that it can be cast into/out of combat in order for it to go off on a unit, or from a unit, engaged in combat -- once they FAQ it, I'll most likely have to change my ruling, but for the moment, plan on that being the ruling at the 'Ard Boyz (gotta go with what's written, don't I).

yeah that's gay if you couldn't cast it in combat.....

Sam on a side note.

I was reading up on Copyright laws.

I think it's ok for you to use a segment from a book as long as

1. You or the forum are not making any money off of it
2. You're not causing GW to lose any money off of it.
3. You are using it for educational purposes, like you did above.
4. You are not making large areas of the book available, aka through downloading and such.

Unless I'm mistaken, your use of actual written phrases from a codex, armybook , or rule book for education purposes falls under the "Fair Use" laws of copyright law.

Here's an excerpt.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

It may be an oversight, or it may be some way of balancing the VCs since they can potentially get Armor saves AND regen from crumbling ..... thats pretty damn sick, TKs dont get jack, you crumble and you are crumbled

im still kinda confused with your answer Sam, is your ruling goign to be that they CANT raise while engaged in hand to hand or that they can ?

gotta love how GW takes out books without proof reading them... just like the 1 wound nobs on Bikes, lol.

Why you going with RAW when you quote s phrase that breaks RAW.

I think this should be ruled on Spirit.... just like the forst rulings of the Ork codex were.... the new dexes/AB's are crap you gotta roll with the punches and stupidity GW dishes out...

Imagine if the Ork codex just came out. Would Ork Stormboys and Bike nobs where RAW have Fleet of Foot and 1 would be allowed to use those rules...

Ovich wrote:I was reading up on Copyright laws.

I think it's ok for you to use a segment from a book as long as

1. You or the forum are not making any money off of it
2. You're not causing GW to lose any money off of it.
3. You are using it for educational purposes, like you did above.
4. You are not making large areas of the book available, aka through downloading and such.

Unless I'm mistaken, your use of actual written phrases from a codex, armybook , or rule book for education purposes falls under the "Fair Use" laws of copyright law.

Thanks Stephan, but I'm always erring on the side of caution with GW. Appreciate the complete law, though.

luis the young wrote:It may be an oversight, or it may be some way of balancing the VCs since they can potentially get Armor saves AND regen from crumbling ..... thats pretty damn sick, TKs dont get jack, you crumble and you are crumbled

Not armor saves, but Ward Saves and Regen can be, though I believe they will FAQ it that nothing can save a crumbling wound.

luis the young wrote:im still kinda confused with your answer Sam, is your ruling goign to be that they CANT raise while engaged in hand to hand or that they can ?

I'm inclined to rule that you cannot/NOT cast into combat, as the rule does not specifically state that it can be, where as one other spell in the Vampire Lore listing does have the "can cast into combat" special rule.

luis the young wrote:gotta love how GW takes out books without proof reading them... just like the 1 wound nobs on Bikes, lol.

Yup...GW's editors should be drawn and quartered! Supposedly Jervis Johnson is supposed to be reviewing each and every book before it goes out the door...methinks he's not really all that involved, or he's getting too old to remember anything!

Excuse you.... you seem to have ignored my post....

The invocation states it can be case on: "any unit within XX inches" As long as they are within that they can be raised...

If we are talking about a Vampire himself casting the spell whilst in combat with a unit then that may be another issue...

Ward saves and Regen can be used against a crumble.... it says so in a recent White Dwarf...

The problem Max ,comes from the rule book saying that the spell in question HAS to state that it can be cast into hand to hand, like my raise spell, it states on it that it can be cast on a unit even if its involved in hand to hand combat, the Invocation doesnt say this.

Im not sure if this was done intentional since the VCs became so much more stronger than they were before and it was done as a matter of balance.. i mean, a spell that can raise 5d6 zombies ... Damn! zombies suck, but still, is 5D6 of them! FREE ! Or maybe it was an error on their part since GW LOVES to screw shit up...just like the Dragon princess being immune to flaming attacks.. thus rendering them immune to a flaming 50lb cannonball shot from a dwarf cannon, or a shot from a Screaming Skull catapult.

And unless that WD says that it replaces all other rullings in army books, then the TKs CANNOT save wounds taken from crumbling... AT ALL.!

any unit within 18 inches...
Does not say any UNENGAGED or whatver simply ANY.

Max, your missing the point. the MAIN rulebook states (in the magic section) that spells must specify that you can cast them into close combat.

What your reading means that you do not require line of sight to cast Nehek, which is also very nice on it's own.

Why doesn't anyone call GW a couple of times and ask this?