Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was playing a game of warhammer with my High Elves and two things came up.

First: I shot his abyssal terror out from under him and killed it. He then invocated it and brought it back to life arguing it was part of the unit and since the Vamp was at full life the wound gained would go on the his mount. The potential for this could be huge if he is right. We diced off and he won and brought it back to life where i killed it again. He brought it back to life and danced into a unit. Crazy!

Second: How can i convince my friend that a battlestandard bearer CAN use a greatweapon. I told him that the AB has no restrictions but he claims the normal game rules dont allow it. He says that army builder MUST have made a mistake. Is he right?

Thanks for any input!

Second: It is legal, but expect your friend to have to model the BSB with his great weapon being wielded two handedly.

This can be done if the battle standard is a large back banner.

First: Your friend is incorrect: page 39 of the VC army book, 2nd paragraph of the invocation of Nehek spell;

"Characters must be targeted separately to benefit from this spell. If the character is riding a non-cavalry mount the player must nominate whether the rider or the steed benefits from the spell."

In the situation you describe, he targeted the Vampire character and attempted to "spend" the wound on the character's mount. This is plainly impermissible and in contradiction to the spell's stated rules for targeting. In order to heal a monstrous mount like an abyssal terror, the terror must be targeted; if the terror is destroyed it is not on the board and it is not a legal target.

If he raises the point that the model is on the table, remind him of the first paragraph under "Slain Riders or Mounts" in the section on Monstrous Mounts (page 61 in the Battle for Skull pass rulebook);

"If the mount is slain, the rider may continue to fight on foot if you have a separate model to represent him."

A monstrous mount is clearly removed from play at the time of destruction. Allowing him to not have to immediatly replace his mounted lord with a version on foot is a friendly indulgence, not a license to alter the basic rules.

Second: it depends. Certain army books have odd restrictions on what the BSB can have (OK for instance, have odd restrictions, while HE have apparently more options then others).

question 2 is easy, basicly High elves, vampire counts, and daemons so far have no Mundane equipment restrictions on Battle Standards. I expect this to be the norm from now on. The Orc and Empire books ( and the 6.5 dwarf book) limit the BSB to a single handed weapon, No shield, and armor.

Thanks for the replies. Both were what my instincts were telling me and where my rule interpretations were going. I just couldnt vocalize it well enough. I still think the VC book is crazy and very hard for my HE to defeat.

A little off the subject, I was beat up pretty bad by the He, I play VC and I do know that you cannot bring the mount back. My advice to maul the VC, counter the magic. My friend kept getting the drain magic off and made my Level 1s worthless. I still tore into him but it was too late and my units were small, due to Invocation of Nehek being 7+ to cast due to that damn Drain Magic. Good luck and happy gaming!!

Wow, I'm not going to repeat everything as the topic is pretty well covered, but you got hosed dude. I'm a bit ashamed because as a VC player myself that is some shady crap that guy pulled. Play him again and whip his ass. BTW, while it doesnt say anything about GW's being used it can be assumed that it isn't really likely you would be holding a two handed weapon and waving a flag with the other. I guess if you're a rule nazi then yeah you can get away with it but otherwise it doesn't make sense. I wouldn't allow it.

so, standard bearerds for units of toops with great weapons couldn't use their great weapon either? or they could walk around with the banner, then plant it in the ground and draw their weapon when they need to fight.

As far as Battle Standard Bearers are concerned, there are no restrictions in the main rules. You can equip your BSB with anything allowed in the specific army book.

Orcs & Goblins, and Empire, being the first army books released, carried over the restrictions from 6th ed. They cannot take shields, great weapons, etc.

High Elves, Vampire Counts, Daemons, and now Dark Elves have no restrictions on the BSB's mundane equipment. They can take shields, great weapons, or additional hand weapons.


Your friend is right to be suspicious of Army Builder. You should be able to convince him by asking him to show you the page, in the main rulebook, where BSBs are discussed. Then show him the page, in your army list entry in the army book, that discusses BSBs. Point out to him that the VC book also has no limits on BSB equipment. Remind him that he is now playing seventh edition, and there are many subtle changes from sixth. This is one of them.

wasserrj wrote: BTW, while it doesnt say anything about GW's being used it can be assumed that it isn't really likely you would be holding a two handed weapon and waving a flag with the other. I guess if you're a rule nazi then yeah you can get away with it but otherwise it doesn't make sense. I wouldn't allow it.

You would not allow your opponent to do something that the rules permit? And call him a Rules Nazi if he objects. Huh.

We can assume a lot of things, but that doesn't make them true. I can assume, for example, that a High Elf battle standard is made of spiderwebs and daydreams, and therefore weighs nothing. Or that the Vampire Counts battle standard bearer is twirling & tossing the flag like a drum major in a marching band, pitching it high, chopping enemies down as they watch it, and catching the standard before it hits the ground. These assumptions, while fanciful, fit with the rules.


I think I can sum up my overall opinion of your post this way: When the rules contradict your assumptions, the rules win.

fellblade wrote:

wasserrj wrote: BTW, while it doesnt say anything about GW's being used it can be assumed that it isn't really likely you would be holding a two handed weapon and waving a flag with the other. I guess if you're a rule nazi then yeah you can get away with it but otherwise it doesn't make sense. I wouldn't allow it.

You would not allow your opponent to do something that the rules permit? And call him a Rules Nazi if he objects. Huh.

We can assume a lot of things, but that doesn't make them true. I can assume, for example, that a High Elf battle standard is made of spiderwebs and daydreams, and therefore weighs nothing. Or that the Vampire Counts battle standard bearer is twirling & tossing the flag like a drum major in a marching band, pitching it high, chopping enemies down as they watch it, and catching the standard before it hits the ground. These assumptions, while fanciful, fit with the rules.


I think I can sum up my overall opinion of your post this way: When the rules contradict your assumptions, the rules win.

To add on,
If the rules are still fuzzy or are not really covered- Roll off or make a house rule.

I'd probably be more agreeable to the rolling off way of getting over this, but lets be honest with ourselves fellblade, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to use a GW and have a standard. I realise this isn't supposed to be a realistic game , but if you try and do something "Just because the book doesn't say I can't" you're being a rule lawyer in my book. Sorry if I used Nazi instead, they are two different things. Honestly if I saw that and it were a RTT game or something of that nature I would throw the BS flag in a heartbeat, and not because I think he'd have an advantage (not a huge fan of GW's myself, doesn't really seem to be worth the upgrade in most cases) but because it is an obvious grey area, and I hope someone would do the same if I did something along those lines, which I wouldn't.

Wasserj, the thing is that it’s not a gray area at all. The main rulebook states clearly that standard bearers in regular units get to fight using the same weapons as the rest of the unit, even great weapons or extra hand weapons. They admit it’s not entirely realistic, but tell you to assume the guy carrying the banner is extra tough and skilled and pulls it off. It said the same thing in 6th, and personally I found that the more annoying contradiction- that in 6th ed a regular rank and file standard bearer could do it, but a Hero couldn’t.

Now in 7th they’ve kept the same text about unit standard bearers, and removed the equipment restrictions on Hero battle standard bearers from the core rules. And all the more recent army books have gotten rid of the equipment restrictions for BSBs. The rule is clear, and (IMO), the intent is clear. It’s not entirely realistic, but it’s not entirely unrealistic either if you consider the possibility of back banners, or that the guy just plants the flag next to him when he actually fights someone.

I think if you look honestly at the 7th edition rules, you’ll find that “throwing the BS flag” in this situation is entirely unjustified. Can you imagine how that would feel to (for example) a new player who just started within the last year and plays High Elves? His rulebook says nothing about restricted weapon options for BSBs. His army book has no restrictions. And you’re going to call him a jerk or a cheater for playing by the current rules?

EDIT: Mann beat me to it!

Except that it is not a grey area. The Empire and Orc Army Books limit the BSB. Subsequent Army Books do not. So just follow the rules. I would object to a player insulting another player following the rules.

Why doesn't it make sense? Because it doesn't match the fluff? Why can't the standard bearer plant the standard and fight? Why couldn't an elf wear a back banner? Why couldn't an undead lord act as a supernatural beacon?

My friends and I use to take rules that we didn't agree with and change them. The only thing that lead to was; what rules did we change, how did we change them, and how we could screwed ourselves with those new rules. We stop trying to use logic and just play the game by the rules Games Workshop set up. They are the ones that play tested the hell out of them. We argue a lot less now.

My group, myself included, have problems with getting the different editions of the game mixed up.

Played HE myself and i created my own BSB w. GW.
I simply made the GW longer and attached the banner to the weapon.
No more complaints from anyone.

that is th emost difficult thing about this game, trying to make every little thing like 'real life'. It gets to the point where the game is no fun anymore. If itis a friedly game and not a tournament, make a house rule for it. This thread everyone is going to be going back and forth and get nowhere in the end. This is just my opinion.

Drahzar, please take this in the nicest possible way:

In 7th edition, BSBs can use whatever the heck weapons their army book allows them to take.

That's the rules. Seriously.

This thread has about six different things going on in it, and few if any are still related to the original post. But that's the fun of the internet.

Wasserj is simply incorrect, and his error has been pointed out. Hopefully he will now refrain from throwing the 'BS flag' should his opponent in a tournament have a legally-equipped BSB that offends wasserj's sense of realism, because the rules allow it, and wasserj is a stand-up guy who plays by the rules. Even when they make no sense.

If he and his friends wish to modify the BSB rules in friendly games, that is entirely their prerogative and no one will think badly of them.

I laughed when he mentioned the 'the rules don't say I can't' argument, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I tend to agree. "The rules don't say I can't" is a terrible argument. In most games, the rules tell us what we are allowed to do. There is nothing in the rule book that forbids me to move your units, but very few people would think it's okay for me to do so! But because it is such a terrible argument, most Rules Lawyers won't use it. It is an amateurish and easily countered ploy.

Sadly, Games Workshop seems to have started using that very argument. See the most recent Errata/FAQ for Empire. Does the prayer 'Hammer of Sigmar' affect a model's ranged attacks? The wording does not specify (Ed.- the rule doesn't say you can't), so yes. Already there are people wondering if a Dark Elf Sorceress can use her eternal hatred to reroll the close-combat attacks from the Bladewind spell. Some folk were arguing that spells from Horrors were flaming, since Horrors had flaming attacks, but fortunately the Daemons FAQ nipped that in the bud.

At any rate, I don't think there is a problem with the thread. I think we've got people who all agree with each other, expressing themselves in a somewhat confused fashion.