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.

Do I need Nagash inorder to build one, or can I simply take my already existing VC army and put mos TK in it? Does each half need a general?

You need an Undead Legions army. The rules for which are in his rulebook.

 Hive Fleet Cerberus wrote:
Do I need Nagash inorder to build one, or can I simply take my already existing VC army and put mos TK in it? Does each half need a general?

Basically, take every unit from both TK and VC and combine them.
Then toss out the rules about TK not being able to march (they now march like VC), and every buff/effect treat both VC and TK as undead.
You can put a Tomb King and Necrotec in a Grave Guard unit with the banner of the barrows for a WS6 S6 killing blow attacks that are +1 to hit and re-roll misses.
Also gone is the requirement for the general to be a spell caster, or the general to have lore of vampire.
Also gone is the crumble effect for losing the general/hierophant.
In short, everything got better.
Nagash is a special character, (along with ~4 more new ones).

The option for spending up to 50% on lords and 50% on heroes is a campaign only bonus.

Is there any requirements to have it be a united army, or any reason NOT to go United? I want to know before I get the book incase it isnt worth my time.

 Hive Fleet Cerberus wrote:
Is there any requirements to have it be a united army, or any reason NOT to go United? I want to know before I get the book incase it isnt worth my time.

The wording on how undead units are healed have changed. In undead army doesn't allow characters to be healed at all, Vampire Counts does.
That's pretty much the only reason to not run the Undead Army.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Hive Fleet Cerberus wrote:
Is there any requirements to have it be a united army, or any reason NOT to go United? I want to know before I get the book incase it isnt worth my time.

The wording on how undead units are healed have changed. In undead army doesn't allow characters to be healed at all, Vampire Counts does.
That's pretty much the only reason to not run the Undead Army.

But you can still benefit from the Lore of Vampires giving characters 1 wound back per spell cast (as it is a specific exception).

Wonder if this is first step in more combined armies. Like WoC + DoC. You could sure get rid of a lot of DoC weaknesses like that.

Maybe Empire and Ogres? That would be awesome.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Hive Fleet Cerberus wrote:
Do I need Nagash inorder to build one, or can I simply take my already existing VC army and put mos TK in it? Does each half need a general?

Basically, take every unit from both TK and VC and combine them.
Then toss out the rules about TK not being able to march (they now march like VC), and every buff/effect treat both VC and TK as undead.
You can put a Tomb King and Necrotec in a Grave Guard unit with the banner of the barrows for a WS6 S6 killing blow attacks that are +1 to hit and re-roll misses.
Also gone is the requirement for the general to be a spell caster, or the general to have lore of vampire.
Also gone is the crumble effect for losing the general/hierophant.
In short, everything got better.
Nagash is a special character, (along with ~4 more new ones).

The option for spending up to 50% on lords and 50% on heroes is a campaign only bonus.

Actually. The WS boost specifically states that it ONLY affects Nehekharan undead. Unless the book overrides that, the grave guard are still WS 3.

 Ehsteve wrote:

But you can still benefit from the Lore of Vampires giving characters 1 wound back per spell cast (as it is a specific exception).

Not exactly.
The casting wizard can heal 1 wound (specific) or another friendly model within 12" (not specific to characters).
So if the wounded character is the one doing the casting, he can regain a wound. If it's another wizard casting, you can heal an ubshati, crypt horror, mortis engine, casket of souls etc, but not a character.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

Actually. The WS boost specifically states that it ONLY affects Nehekharan undead. Unless the book overrides that, the grave guard are still WS 3.

Looks like you need to actually buy and read the book if you want to play along in YMTC.
Nehekharan undead is gone. All references to it is now just "undead"; and everything in the VC and TK books are "undead".

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:

But you can still benefit from the Lore of Vampires giving characters 1 wound back per spell cast (as it is a specific exception).

Not exactly.
The casting wizard can heal 1 wound (specific) or another friendly model within 12" (not specific to characters).
So if the wounded character is the one doing the casting, he can regain a wound. If it's another wizard casting, you can heal an ubshati, crypt horror, mortis engine, casket of souls etc, but not a character.

Forgive my ignorance, but how could another character not qualify as another 'friendly model'? I think the intepretation is far too strict in this particular case and would pertain.

If we are going to be that strict, then I would argue (quite rightly) that a lore attribute is not a spell or a magic item (cannot be dispelled) and as such the rule stating that spell or magic items don't allow a character to heal are bypassed.

Is the Lore of Fire attribute a seperate spell when it adds +1 to the casting result against the same unit?

Furthermore, the Vampire Counts FAQ:

Q: Can the Curse of Undeath Lore Attribute be used to heal friendly characters or their mounts, other than the caster himself? (p60)
A: Yes

Undead Legions still uses the Vampire Count and Tomb Kings army books, hence the FAQ applying to them is still valid therein. This only applies to the Lore Attribute in this case, but that is solid (and by my reckoning definitive) evidence that Curse of Undeath can affect characters other than the caster.

 Ehsteve wrote:

Forgive my ignorance, but how could another character not qualify as another 'friendly model'? I think the intepretation is far too strict in this particular case and would pertain.

If we are going to be that strict, then I would argue (quite rightly) that a lore attribute is not a spell or a magic item (cannot be dispelled) and as such the rule stating that spell or magic items don't allow a character to heal are bypassed.

Is the Lore of Fire attribute a seperate spell when it adds +1 to the casting result against the same unit?

Furthermore, the Vampire Counts FAQ:
Q: Can the Curse of Undeath Lore Attribute be used to heal friendly characters or their mounts, other than the caster himself? (p60)
A: Yes
Undead Legions still uses the Vampire Count and Tomb Kings army books, hence the FAQ applying to them is still valid therein. This only applies to the Lore Attribute in this case, but that is solid (and by my reckoning definitive) evidence that Curse of Undeath can affect characters other than the caster.

Page 18: The Army Special Rules from Warhammer: Vampire Counts, and Warhammer: Tomb Kings are not used. Note that the rules for Resurrecting Fallen Warriors have been revised, and players should refer to the note printed below and not those printed in either VC or TK.
So the FAQ from VC doesn't matter, we're specifically told to ignore that and use the rules in UL. In fact, the rules in UL specifically say that you cannot heal the mount.
Page 19 details that if a character is in a unit, only the unit can regain lost wounds. This isn't specific to any given spell, but more exactly, a general rule for undead in undead legions.
The lore attribute is part of a spell, which is why you get MR against it (lore of heavens & DE lore of darkness).

As for how is "The Caster" and another model different. Can a Hierotitan issue a challenge? It's got multiple wounds. And the answer is of course No. Some models with multiple wounds are casters, some are not. You may not heal a character unless the spell/item says you can.
What is interesting is that I don't think the caster can even heal himself, if he's in a unit. I didn't catch that bit until just now.

I'm not that worried about any of this, not healing characters is pretty minor; especially with all the new stuff gained.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:

Forgive my ignorance, but how could another character not qualify as another 'friendly model'? I think the intepretation is far too strict in this particular case and would pertain.

If we are going to be that strict, then I would argue (quite rightly) that a lore attribute is not a spell or a magic item (cannot be dispelled) and as such the rule stating that spell or magic items don't allow a character to heal are bypassed.

Is the Lore of Fire attribute a seperate spell when it adds +1 to the casting result against the same unit?

Furthermore, the Vampire Counts FAQ:
Q: Can the Curse of Undeath Lore Attribute be used to heal friendly characters or their mounts, other than the caster himself? (p60)
A: Yes
Undead Legions still uses the Vampire Count and Tomb Kings army books, hence the FAQ applying to them is still valid therein. This only applies to the Lore Attribute in this case, but that is solid (and by my reckoning definitive) evidence that Curse of Undeath can affect characters other than the caster.

Page 18: The Army Special Rules from Warhammer: Vampire Counts, and Warhammer: Tomb Kings are not used. Note that the rules for Resurrecting Fallen Warriors have been revised, and players should refer to the note printed below and not those printed in either VC or TK.
So the FAQ from VC doesn't matter, we're specifically told to ignore that and use the rules in UL. In fact, the rules in UL specifically say that you cannot heal the mount.
Page 19 details that if a character is in a unit, only the unit can regain lost wounds. This isn't specific to any given spell, but more exactly, a general rule for undead in undead legions.
The lore attribute is part of a spell, which is why you get MR against it (lore of heavens & DE lore of darkness).

As for how is "The Caster" and another model different. Can a Hierotitan issue a challenge? It's got multiple wounds. And the answer is of course No. Some models with multiple wounds are casters, some are not. You may not heal a character unless the spell/item says you can.
What is interesting is that I don't think the caster can even heal himself, if he's in a unit. I didn't catch that bit until just now.

I'm not that worried about any of this, not healing characters is pretty minor; especially with all the new stuff gained.

So you're saying that Bashee howls/terrorgheists are not FAQ'd if you use Undead Legions? Can they scream into combat? Can a Tomb King bestow WS10 onto a unit if he has the Fencer's Blades?

What about being able to benefit from inspiring presence/hold your ground against Light of Death from the Casket of Souls?

You can't cherry-pick through the FAQ otherwise the whole thing ends up un-errata'd and you end up with a mess of two army books without an FAQ.

Curse of Undeath is the exception to Resurrecting Undead because it uses specific wording to do so. That's exactly where I stand on the issue.

 Ehsteve wrote:

So you're saying that Bashee howls/terrorgheists are not FAQ'd if you use Undead Legions? Can they scream into combat? Can a Tomb King bestow WS10 onto a unit if he has the Fencer's Blades?
What about being able to benefit from inspiring presence/hold your ground against Light of Death from the Casket of Souls?
You can't cherry-pick through the FAQ otherwise the whole thing ends up un-errata'd and you end up with a mess of two army books without an FAQ.
Curse of Undeath is the exception to Resurrecting Undead because it uses specific wording to do so. That's exactly where I stand on the issue.

You're specifically told to IGNORE the rules in the VC book for how to heal units and instead use the rules presented in the UL army list, when running a UL army.
I'm not saying ignore all the FAQ's, I'm saying the the FAQ on how Vampire Magic in the Vampire book doesn't apply to UL, because UL tells us to ignore it.

You're more than free to play it the old way...in a Vampire Counts Army.
Curse of undeath does have specific wording. So does Undead Legions; but since undead legion says to IGNORE the healing rules in the VC book, you kind of have to Ignore the healing rules in the VC book.

Sorry but I just can't get my head around in any way ignoring the FAQ as it stands. Furthermore I do not accept that a Lore Attribute is a spell nor that an FAQ can be ignored even in this circumstance.

It says that the Curse of Undeath means that I can heal characters and their mounts. Regardless of what UL says, I am allowed to use that FAQ, because in order of importance it supersedes anything UL might say. I may come off as blunt in this, but I just can't say with candor that I am compelled by your arguement that Curse of Undeath cannot function on Characters.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:

So you're saying that Bashee howls/terrorgheists are not FAQ'd if you use Undead Legions? Can they scream into combat? Can a Tomb King bestow WS10 onto a unit if he has the Fencer's Blades?
What about being able to benefit from inspiring presence/hold your ground against Light of Death from the Casket of Souls?
You can't cherry-pick through the FAQ otherwise the whole thing ends up un-errata'd and you end up with a mess of two army books without an FAQ.
Curse of Undeath is the exception to Resurrecting Undead because it uses specific wording to do so. That's exactly where I stand on the issue.

You're specifically told to IGNORE the rules in the VC book for how to heal units and instead use the rules presented in the UL army list, when running a UL army.
I'm not saying ignore all the FAQ's, I'm saying the the FAQ on how Vampire Magic in the Vampire book doesn't apply to UL, because UL tells us to ignore it.

You're more than free to play it the old way...in a Vampire Counts Army.
Curse of undeath does have specific wording. So does Undead Legions; but since undead legion says to IGNORE the healing rules in the VC book, you kind of have to Ignore the healing rules in the VC book.

What you are referring to is the Resurrecting Fallen Warriors rules, which have always specified they cannot be used to heal characters.
The rule in question is the Lore of the Vampires Lore Attribute which specifies thus:
"When a spell from the Lore of the Vampires is successfully cast, the Wizard (or another friendly model within 12") instantly recovers a single Wound lost earlier in the battle."

This does not in any way follow the rules for Resurrecting Fallen Warriors and never has, hence why Vampire Counts are able to heal their characters and why the Lore Attribute cannot resurrect a dead model, i.e. a Skeleton or Zombie for instance. The Undead Legions book states that you ignore the rules for Resurrecting Fallen Warriors in the Vampire Counts and Tomb Kings book, but this does not affect the Lore of the Vampires Lore Attribute as that doesn't follow the rules for Resurrecting Fallen Warriors. Why else do you think the Lore of Nehekara lore attribute and Invocation of Nehek specifically say "Wounds gained are distributed as described in Resurrecting Fallen Warriors"? The same wording is lacking from the Lore of the Vampires Lore Attribute, which is why an FAQ was released to clear up any confusion - note that this was not an Errata or amendment and thus not a rules change.

Therefore, if someone tries to say that Invocation of Nehek can be used to heal their solo caster, the spell itself cannot but the Lore Attribute still can. Your argument would be legitimate if the Lore Attribute specified "following the rules for Resurrecting Fallen Warriors" but seeing as it does not, there is zero reason for the Lore Attribute to be incapable of healing characters. Additionally, the wording of being unable to heal characters under the "Resurrecting Fallen Warriors" special rule which is the cause of this argument was worded identically in the Vampire Counts book; the Lore Attribute always let you heal characters as it did not follow those rules. From the Vampire Counts army book:

"Unless specifically stated otherwise, spells and magic items that restore lost Wounds cannot heal characters or their mounts".

Now for the wording from the Undead Legions army book;

"Unless specifically stated otherwise, spells and magic items that restore lost Wounds cannot heal characters or their mounts".

Identical wording from the "Resurrecting Fallen Warriors" sections, same deal. The Lore Attribute does not follow the rules for Resurrecting Fallen Warriors, ergo it can still be used to heal characters and their mounts. If the FAQ on this subject was actually an Errata or Amendment then this argument might have some basis, but seeing as it was an FAQ to clear up confusing rules wording there is no issue whatsoever here. I see no reason whatsoever to believe that the Lore Attribute cannot heal characters, as the rules for Resurrecting Fallen Warriors - which are the ones that state you cannot heal Undead characters - are specifically mentioned for certain spells but not for the Lore Attribute.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

The option for spending up to 50% on lords and 50% on heroes is a campaign only bonus.

Is it specified that it only works for the campaign? The spanish wording literally says it is an update on how WHFB is played.

Caederes wrote:

"Unless specifically stated otherwise, spells and magic items that restore lost Wounds cannot heal characters or their mounts".
Now for the wording from the Undead Legions army book;
"Unless specifically stated otherwise, spells and magic items that restore lost Wounds cannot heal characters or their mounts".
Identical wording from the "Resurrecting Fallen Warriors" sections, same deal.

Read the whole rule.

VC: If the target consists of a single model, such as a lone character or a corpse cart, then it can never exceed its starting Wounds value.
UL: That line has been removed. The rest of the rule the same (more detail on raising units of monstrous infantry/beasts/cav); but removed wounds be returned to characters on their own.
The old VC rule specifically allowed it, the new UL removed that ability.

Resurrecting Fallen Warriors applies to both healing a wounded unit, and replacing lost troops; Some magic psells and items can restore lost Wounds and even resurrect fallen warriors...
Are you trying to restore lost wounds? Then you need to follow the rules in UL.

 DukeRustfield wrote:
Wonder if this is first step in more combined armies. Like WoC + DoC. You could sure get rid of a lot of DoC weaknesses like that.

Maybe Empire and Ogres? That would be awesome.

Probably Bretonnia and Empire, if they were to continue combining.

At least, IMO.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

Caederes wrote:

"Unless specifically stated otherwise, spells and magic items that restore lost Wounds cannot heal characters or their mounts".
Now for the wording from the Undead Legions army book;
"Unless specifically stated otherwise, spells and magic items that restore lost Wounds cannot heal characters or their mounts".
Identical wording from the "Resurrecting Fallen Warriors" sections, same deal.

Read the whole rule.

VC: If the target consists of a single model, such as a lone character or a corpse cart, then it can never exceed its starting Wounds value.
UL: That line has been removed. The rest of the rule the same (more detail on raising units of monstrous infantry/beasts/cav); but removed wounds be returned to characters on their own.
The old VC rule specifically allowed it, the new UL removed that ability.

Resurrecting Fallen Warriors applies to both healing a wounded unit, and replacing lost troops; Some magic psells and items can restore lost Wounds and even resurrect fallen warriors...
Are you trying to restore lost wounds? Then you need to follow the rules in UL.

But as stated, Curse of Undeath (firstly not a spell, don't know where you're getting that from) does not follow the Resurrecting Fallen Warriors. It simply restores wounds outside of the Resurrecting Fallen Warriors mechanic. Those two points alone should be enough to bypass this restriction, mainly because it never touches the Resurrecting Fallen Warriors section in the first place.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

Caederes wrote:

"Unless specifically stated otherwise, spells and magic items that restore lost Wounds cannot heal characters or their mounts".
Now for the wording from the Undead Legions army book;
"Unless specifically stated otherwise, spells and magic items that restore lost Wounds cannot heal characters or their mounts".
Identical wording from the "Resurrecting Fallen Warriors" sections, same deal.

Read the whole rule.

VC: If the target consists of a single model, such as a lone character or a corpse cart, then it can never exceed its starting Wounds value.
UL: That line has been removed. The rest of the rule the same (more detail on raising units of monstrous infantry/beasts/cav); but removed wounds be returned to characters on their own.
The old VC rule specifically allowed it, the new UL removed that ability.

Resurrecting Fallen Warriors applies to both healing a wounded unit, and replacing lost troops; Some magic psells and items can restore lost Wounds and even resurrect fallen warriors...
Are you trying to restore lost wounds? Then you need to follow the rules in UL.

I'm sorry, but how does that one line in the Vampire Counts book override the rest of the Resurrecting Fallen Warriors rule? That sentence implies exactly what it does - you can't take something like a Terrorgheist above its starting number of wounds with a spell that restores lost wounds using the Resurrecting Fallen Warrior mechanics. Character and Corpse Carts are used as examples, not as the only potential targets. That sentence does not say "this means you can heal characters", it says exactly what it implies - that you can't take a single model above its starting number of wounds.

For the rules actually pertaining to healing characters, there has been no change in the wording from the Vampire Counts army book to the Undead Legion army list. This is again why there was an FAQ released to clear up whether the Curse of Undeath could heal characters, NOT an Errata. It was a clarification that the Curse of Undeath was separate from the Resurrecting Fallen Warriors rule, much like Lifeboom from the Lore of Life - the two are worded pretty much identically.

You still haven't explained this part yet: Why else do you think the Lore of Nehekara lore attribute and Invocation of Nehek specifically say "Wounds gained are distributed as described in Resurrecting Fallen Warriors"? That same wording is entirely lacking from the Curse of Undeath.
Here's a hint - because the Lore Attribute does not follow the rules for Resurrecting Fallen Warriors, otherwise it would explicitly state it did just like Invocation of Nehek or the Lore of Nehekara Lore Attribute.

The overwhelming evidence lies with the Curse of Undeath being distinct from the Resurrecting Fallen Warriors rules - hence why you cannot bring back dead models with it - and so will my gaming store play it. I know the White Dwarf editors often get their rules wrong and did numerous times in their Fall of Settra battle report, but they are absolutely spot on when they say taking Invocation of Nehek to heal Nagash is both viable and possible. The spell cannot heal him, but the Lore Attribute most certainly can.

Caederes wrote:

For the rules actually pertaining to healing characters, there has been no change in the wording from the Vampire Counts army book to the Undead Legion army list. This is again why there was an FAQ released to clear up whether the Curse of Undeath could heal characters, NOT an Errata. It was a clarification that the Curse of Undeath was separate from the Resurrecting Fallen Warriors rule, much like Lifeboom from the Lore of Life - the two are worded pretty much identically.

You still haven't explained this part yet: Why else do you think the Lore of Nehekara lore attribute and Invocation of Nehek specifically say "Wounds gained are distributed as described in Resurrecting Fallen Warriors"? That same wording is entirely lacking from the Curse of Undeath.
Here's a hint - because the Lore Attribute does not follow the rules for Resurrecting Fallen Warriors, otherwise it would explicitly state it did just like Invocation of Nehek or the Lore of Nehekara Lore Attribute.

Lore of Nehekara and Invocation both restore multiple wounds, the reference to Fallen Warriors is to remind you how to recover those. Lack of a reminder is not permission.
Potion of healing says the character recovers a D6 wounds. By your logic, that should work for any undead character.
FAQ vs Errata has been fairly random in the past. The difference between life bloom and Curse of Undeath is that living models don't have an army rule saying that they cannot be healed.

What part of "If the character is in a unit, only the unit will regain wounds" does Curse of Undeath get around?
Again, if you're disregarding Fallen Warriors, then you can use lore of life and potions of healing to heal undead.

Firstly, a model must exist to gain a wound. You can't be lacking a model on the table and then give it a wound. Secondly, Lore of Life's Lore Attribute (Lifebloom) is not a spell, it is a Lore Attribute, so it could well work on a character because even if it does use the Resurrecting Fallen Warriors (which it doesn't) it's not a spell or magical item. Thirdly, Lore of Life has it's own rules for Regrowth and how it functions, which is not called Resurrecting Fallen Warriors.

Reference (p163):

LORE ATTRIBUTES
"Some Lores of Magic, including those presented in this book, have something called a 'lore attribute'. This is essentially a grouping of one or more special rules that are applied to certain spells for that lore. A lore attribute might give certain spells an additional effect against a particular troop type, or alter the way a spell behaves..."

Example would be say...Lore of Heavens with Roiling Skies or Lore of Metal with Metalshifting. However for lores like Lore of Shadows with Smoke and Mirrors and Lore of Life with Lifebloom, you are left with an effect which takes place directly after the spell is resolved successfully, cannot be dispelled and has none of the characteristics of a spell, and as such are outside of the 'might' condition of affecting the spell itself.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

Caederes wrote:

For the rules actually pertaining to healing characters, there has been no change in the wording from the Vampire Counts army book to the Undead Legion army list. This is again why there was an FAQ released to clear up whether the Curse of Undeath could heal characters, NOT an Errata. It was a clarification that the Curse of Undeath was separate from the Resurrecting Fallen Warriors rule, much like Lifeboom from the Lore of Life - the two are worded pretty much identically.

You still haven't explained this part yet: Why else do you think the Lore of Nehekara lore attribute and Invocation of Nehek specifically say "Wounds gained are distributed as described in Resurrecting Fallen Warriors"? That same wording is entirely lacking from the Curse of Undeath.
Here's a hint - because the Lore Attribute does not follow the rules for Resurrecting Fallen Warriors, otherwise it would explicitly state it did just like Invocation of Nehek or the Lore of Nehekara Lore Attribute.

Lore of Nehekara and Invocation both restore multiple wounds, the reference to Fallen Warriors is to remind you how to recover those. Lack of a reminder is not permission.
Potion of healing says the character recovers a D6 wounds. By your logic, that should work for any undead character.
FAQ vs Errata has been fairly random in the past. The difference between life bloom and Curse of Undeath is that living models don't have an army rule saying that they cannot be healed.

What part of "If the character is in a unit, only the unit will regain wounds" does Curse of Undeath get around?
Again, if you're disregarding Fallen Warriors, then you can use lore of life and potions of healing to heal undead.

First off, let me add to Ehsteve's post by proving that the Lore Attribute is never once referred to as a spell. From the Warhammer Rulebook FAQ:

Q: Do I get to use Magic Resistance against Wounds caused by lore attributes (Reference)?
A: Yes.

That is the part you are referring to, but nowhere does this say "lore attributes are treated as spells" like you have previously claimed. Here are further queries in the same FAQ that destroy this particular line of thinking:

Does the Roiling Skies Lore Attribute require you to successfully cast the spell before its effect can be applied (Reference)?
A: Yes.

If a bound spell is from a Lore of Magic with a lore attribute, will the successful casting of the bound spell also trigger the lore attribute? (p37)
A: Yes. It is worth noting that some lore attributes effects targets the Wizard casting the spell.

Where exactly is it stated that a Lore Attribute is a spell? In every instance a Lore Attribute is referred to as a separate effect, a result of a spell being cast but not a spell itself. Assuming that Curse of Undeath even follows the rules for Resurrecting Fallen Warriors, it is not a spell and therefore ignores the restrictions.

As for your other argument, the fact that the Lore of Nehekara Lore Attribute and Invocation of Nehek restore multiple wounds is not the reason they have the reference to the Resurrecting Fallen Warriors rules. Want to know why? Have a look at Arkhan the Black's profile from the Tomb Kings army book:

The Tomb Blade of Arkhan. Magic Weapon. For every unsaved Wound caused by this blade to an enemy in close combat, Arkhan's unit immediately recovers a Wound for each one inflicted, as described in Resurrecting Fallen Warriors (see page 28).

If Resurrecting Fallen Warriors was a blanket rule as you suggest, why would they need to specify that the Tomb Blade follows that rule when it only restores a single wound per unsaved wound inflicted. The Curse of Undeath restores a single wound, does that share the Resurrecting Fallen Warriors blurb? Nope!

Additionally, as I specified in my previous reply, the rules for restoring wounds to characters have not changed between the Vampire Counts army book and the Undead Legions army list. That line that was added was specifically to state that you cannot take a model above its starting number of wounds, which means it didn't in any way contradict the earlier parts of the same rule - the ones that specified it can't be used to heal characters. No change in the wording for healing characters, the Curse of Undeath has always been able to heal characters, but all of a sudden you are saying Undead Legions can't use the Curse of Undeath to heal characters but Vampire Counts still can? Excuse me, there's a huge leap in logic there.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I have none of the three books in question, here), but if the wording for 'Resurrecting Fallen Warriors' has never allowed for a character to be healed, then what exactly would be the point of the lore attribute for the Lore of the Vampires if it didn't work?

Invocation of Nehek, as a spell, follows the rules for 'Resurrecting Fallen Warriors'. The lore attribute for Vampires, Curse of Undeath, is NOT a spell but rather a separate effect that follows different rules.

It seems crystal clear to me that this effect is unchanged for Undead Legions. Undead Legions tosses out the old undead rules and 'Resurrecting Fallen Warriors' from both books and replaces both of them. But nothing I've seen suggests the Undead Legions rules have any impact on the lore attributes for the Lore of the Vampires of the Lore of Nehekehara.

 Lord Yayula wrote:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

The option for spending up to 50% on lords and 50% on heroes is a campaign only bonus.

Is it specified that it only works for the campaign? The spanish wording literally says it is an update on how WHFB is played.

And this brings up a whole other argument. But yes, I agree. It's not a campaign setting rule only.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Hive Fleet Cerberus wrote:
Do I need Nagash inorder to build one, or can I simply take my already existing VC army and put mos TK in it? Does each half need a general?

Basically, take every unit from both TK and VC and combine them.
Then toss out the rules about TK not being able to march (they now march like VC), and every buff/effect treat both VC and TK as undead.
You can put a Tomb King and Necrotec in a Grave Guard unit with the banner of the barrows for a WS6 S6 killing blow attacks that are +1 to hit and re-roll misses.
Also gone is the requirement for the general to be a spell caster, or the general to have lore of vampire.
Also gone is the crumble effect for losing the general/hierophant.
In short, everything got better.
Nagash is a special character, (along with ~4 more new ones).

The option for spending up to 50% on lords and 50% on heroes is a campaign only bonus.

Actually. The WS boost specifically states that it ONLY affects Nehekharan undead. Unless the book overrides that, the grave guard are still WS 3.

The book does override it. Anything that targets Nehekharen Undead also targets Undead and vice versa. They even said you can just treat everything as saying "Undead" now. So, Tomb Kings spells can heal VC, Tomb Kings can give out their WS, things like that.