Jump to content
  • 0

Alternative warscrolls in matched play


Bosmer Nightblade

Question

Current faq states:

"Q: If I have two different warscrolls for the same unit, 
can I choose which to use, or must I use the most recently 
published version?
A: You can choose which warscroll to use, but it may 
be more convenient for your opponent if you use the 
most recently published version, especially if the earlier 
version is no longer readily available."

 

So far so good.

Ghb17 also says that you must use the latest 'Pitched battle profile'. The profile though is not a warscroll. A warscroll can have a profile, but is not one.

Ghb17 states "in order to be used in a pitched battle, a unit or warscroll battalion must have a pitched battle profile".

It goes on to state that pitched battle profiles can be found in ghb17 or "provided with the warscroll". Ergo they are two separate things.

 

So this is my question. Where in ghb17 or the rules or faq does it state that only the most recent warscroll can be used? I mean that's how some people play it, despite the latest faq literally answering this exact question and allowing the player to use whatever.

I ask this not from a point of view of abuse (such as sayl for example), but from a point of view where some units appear across more than one faction, such as chsos spawn. Chaos spawn under the app and in the latest tzeentch publication have the tzeentch keyword, and lost the ability to let the player pick. But if you have grand alliance chaos, or the warscroll in the chaos spawn box, you may choose their god keyword. Those are both still "current" technically. Spawn appear under slaves to darkness in ghb17 and not arcanites. Spawn can be created by bloodbound and slaves to darkness abilities.

Is there anything wrong with me using a non-tzeentch chaos spawn?

Long way to ask the question but i needed to tie up the faq and ghb rules. Either there's an uncomfortable loophole and gw needs to be clear as to what is update versus what is legal alternative, or I've missed something.

Thankyou for reading this far if you made it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BaldoBeardo said:

It's not a loophole. It's intentional (otherwise they'd have amended the FAQ).

Matched play should be most recent artefacts but that's not enshrined - so it's down to TO's to state it.

That makes sense. GW makes a straight forward, flexible game, and leaves it to TOs to iron out any kinks they don't like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...