8th Ed. Wandering deliberations

[Vadraha]

With this new lore of Undeath coming out will we get the signature spell with WD seeing as though all wizards can take it?

 

[Mr Phat]

The diciplin states that it makes the Slann know the signature spells of each of the EIGHT lores from the Warhammer rulebooks. So no, not without an errata.

 

[Ixt]

I've got the feeling that it'll be made available to WD Slanns, though maybe only to lists that follow the End Times ruleset.

Hopefully, GW will Errata WD to encompass Undeath's signature spell in all formats.

After all, a Slann may choose the Lore of Undeath during the list-building process (I wonder if Priests will be allowed?).

It functions identically to the other Eight lores: all other armies' wizards may take it.

Even Focus of Mystery (as worded) allows you to adopt spells from Undeath via HM's lore attribute, so...

 

[Sleboda]

I've got the feeling that it'll be made available to WD Slanns, though maybe only to lists that follow the End Times ruleset.

It functions identically to the other Eight lores: all other armies' wizards may take it.

=> No offense, but if that's your reasoning, it's a bit off. There is nothing, at all, that says that all 8 BRB lores are available to all wizards.

Though Undeath is for everyone, it is not, in any form or fashion, remotely connected to the 8 Lores in the main rules.

If they were to allow Wandering to take the Sig Spell from Undeath, they might just as well equally allow WD frogs to take the Sig from Orc spells, Dark Magic, or any other Lore.

Undeath =/= BRB Lore.
BRB Lores =/= Available to All Wizards.

 

[NexS1]

From my understanding the lore of undeath is available in the nagash themed battles only, and not in everyday gaming.

In any case, the lore of undeath isn't one of the 8 lores in the BRB... I can't see how it would ever be part of WD

 

[Scalenex]

I've got the feeling that it'll be made available to WD Slanns, though maybe only to lists that follow the End Times ruleset.

Hopefully, GW will Errata WD to encompass Undeath's signature spell in all formats.

After all, a Slann may choose the Lore of Undeath during the list-building process (I wonder if Priests will be allowed?).

It functions identically to the other Eight lores: all other armies' wizards may take it.

Even Focus of Mystery (as worded) allows you to adopt spells from Undeath via HM's lore attribute, so...

I hope you are right, but given the lack of updated FAQs from GW, I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Mr Phat]

If they were to allow Wandering to take the Sig Spell from Undeath, they might just as well equally allow WD frogs to take the Sig from Orc spells, Dark Magic, or any other Lore.

This exactly.

 

[Ixt]

No offense, but if that's your reasoning, it's a bit off. There is nothing, at all, that says that all 8 BRB lores are available to all wizards.

Though Undeath is for everyone, it is not, in any form or fashion, remotely connected to the 8 Lores in the main rules.

If they were to allow Wandering to take the Sig Spell from Undeath, they might just as well equally allow WD frogs to take the Sig from Orc spells, Dark Magic, or any other Lore.

Undeath =/= BRB Lore.
BRB Lores =/= Available to All Wizards.

With respect, I disagree.

While playing under 'End Times' rules, it seems odd that:

a) a Slann (which, in this case, may 'normally generate' spells from the Lore of Undeath) would be allowed to use the High Magic attribute to acquire 'Undeath' spells,

b) a Slann could simply carry the 'Lore of Undeath' as a chosen lore, and/or

c) 'b' could apply, but, somehow, not 'a,'

That covers High Magic: logically, I can 'normally generate' spells from 'Undeath,' and, therefore, I may swap.

That brings us to WD in End Times.

As is, it's logically inconsistent.

Even though it may not strictly be a BRB lore, and even though BRB lores may not be available to all wizards, it seems clear that this lore is not - in any way - 'special' (while playing within 'End Times,' to be clear), as army-specific lores are.

It seems as though it's meant to function as a BRB lore. It looks like it's meant to be pretty common - so common that I can even drop HM spells for it.

But, maybe it doesn't function that way. Maybe our WD Slann doesn't benefit in End Times the way that a FoM Slann does (and boy, would they!).

Either none of the above applies (unable to use HM for Undeath despite clear wording), or WD gets the Sig, or WD doesn't get access to Undeath's Sig, which makes even less sense to me.

Again, this would likely be limited to End Times games - I don't think that Undeath will be available at all outside of End Times. That was just wishful thinking.

*shrug*

Wait and see, I guess.

It just strikes me funny that the lore is going to be somewhat common in thks cpaign, but the WD Slann (as opposed to HM Slann) should get left out.

If a Slann is forbidden from using the Lore of Undeath (certainly possible, though it runs counter to GW's current rhetoric), then I guess all of this speculation is moot.

 

[n810]

LOL maybe they will add the Undeath spells to Lord Kroak's spells.
(fluffy option)

 

[Mr Phat]

Yes, we agree that that Slann can now swap into lore of undeath
and yes, we agree that it could "make sense", but no matter how much you argue the WD discipline simply doesn't state that it grants the signature spell from Undeath.
It is not one of the 8 BRB lores, and IF IT ACTUALLY WAS the discipline itself would break and no longer work since there would now be 9 BRB lores, and the 8 lores it refers to will no longer be an existing group.

It needs an errata or FAQ, until then using it would be inventing rules and thus cheating.
Make a house rule or ask your playgroup if its okay, but do NOT expect it to hold up in restriction (even loosely) controlled environments.

 

[Sleboda]

With respect, I disagree.

=> Fair enough, but under what set of rules would you support your position?

As is, it's logically inconsistent.

=> As is the ability to poison a war machine or a zombie, not to mention the existence of demons, gods, and manticores.

Logic has no place in a discussion of rules.

Even though it may not strictly be a BRB lore,

=> You may or may not be aware of it, or may have just being writing expeditiously, but by saying "not strictly" you are setting up your position as something akin to "This is a BRB lore, through an interpretation not supported by the facts."

It think it is worth clarifying two things here:

1) A question. Do you believe Undeath to BE a BRB Lore?
2) A statement. Undeath is not present in the BRB, nor have we been told that it should be treated as such in any information we have available to us.

and even though BRB lores may not be available to all wizards, it seems clear that this lore is not - in any way - 'special' (while playing within 'End Times,' to be clear), as army-specific lores are.

It seems as though it's meant to function as a BRB lore.

=> This is where we have a major disconnect in our views. You are applying intuition and feelings whereas I am applying the rules. "Seems clear" "Seems as though" - these are not good ways to support any sort of fact-based position.

It "seems" like I should have a published series of novels (to me anyway) but I don't.

It looks like it's meant to be pretty common - so common that I can even drop HM spells for it.

=> Yes. In fact, it's the most common lore around. No other lore is available to all wizards in the game. That has no bearing on being able to take its Sig spell as part of WD. There is no connection between the commonality of a Lore and its inclusion in WD. WD is, rather specifically, only good for the 8 Lores actually IN the BRB. Again, how common any given Lore is really has zero interaction with the WD rule.

Again, this would likely be limited to End Times games - I don't think that Undeath will be available at all outside of End Times. That was just wishful thinking.

=> I actually think these End Times books will be part of regular Warhammer and a sign of 9th to come.

 

[hdctambien]

Fair enough, but under what set of rules would you support your position?

The only set of rules that could be used to support that position have yet to be released.

The rules for Undeath could very well be written as: "The Lore of Undeath is considered a BRB Lore and all references to 'The 8 Lore in the BRB' should be replaced with 'The 9 Lores in the BRB'"

At this point the only thing we know about Undeath is that the product description on the website says: "Now every wizard, mage and sorcerer can wield the fell magic from the Lore of Undeath."

That's not even a rule. Heck, the book could come out and actually say: "No wizards are able to take the Lore of Undeath except Nagash"

Until we see the actual rules we can't have a rules debate about how the (probably) poorly written rules should be interpreted.

The only real answer to the original question is "it depends on what the new rules are." Without the new rules, the Lore of Undeath doesn't even exist so WD definitely cannot take the sig spell from it.

 

[Ixt]

I mean, yeah... I totally agree it needs an errata.

I'm only speculating as to whether it gets one - that's all.

To be clear, I'm not insinuating that anyone should play that way; not until that Errata is published.

Sorry for any confusion.

 

[n810]

No Wories.

 

[Sleboda]

Ditto on the 'no worries' IXt.

I just like to explore the finer points of peoples' views. Discussion forums like these are a great place to do that.

 

[NexS1]

Why would they errata something that has only JUST been released?
As far as I've been made aware, the lore of undeath is available to wizards in "The End Times" scenarios in which Nagash can be used. It is a scenario specific lore which is not present in the BRB because it may not be used in regular games of warhammer.

That's my take on the whole thing, anyway..

 

[Pinktaco]

Why would they errata something that has only JUST been released..

Well they don't because reason. If they did we wouldn't have had the discussion we do about PF would we? Just because something released doesn't exclude them for correcting a mistake, other than their unwillingness to actually do it.

 

[Putzfrau]

=> I actually think these End Times books will be part of regular Warhammer and a sign of 9th to come.

Why do you think that?

 

[Kblock]

=> I actually think these End Times books will be part of regular Warhammer and a sign of 9th to come.

Why do you think that?

I think that this is a good guess. After the WH40K rules being mucked up and requiring a quick redo, perhaps GW wants to do a test run of 9th edition WHF to see how it is accepted and how it works before doing the full release.

 

[NexS1]

Dear god, i hope 50% lords is not a full-time thing......