Jump to content

AoS 2 - Maggotkin of Nurgle Discussion


Gaz Taylor

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

I feel you are all incorrect. The FAQ people were pointing to ("killing ptwb) was dealing with battalions with two different allegiances in them, like the KO battalions with SCE in them.  It wasnt clear whether PTWB was effected by this until the FAQ answered the PTWB DIRECTLY. By all means limit your options and dont play rules as written. Pestilens battalions are still ok in a nurgle army. 

I see where you are reading that, but you really have to break it down.  You almost convinced me for a second (and for the record, I really wish you were correct).  For a logical proof, why would GW FAQ the everchosen book specifically in the opposite way to what you are assuming the FAQ about warscroll battalions says?

But just to put this to rest, the attached screenshot of the FAQ in question asks "can I use allies in my warscroll battalion without them counting against my allies limit, so long as the warscroll battalion has the same allegiance as my army?"  The answer to this is unequivocally yes. The older rule that keeps getting quoted from the Maggotkin (and a few other new-ish battle tomes) about being able to say "all my units in a battletome have nurgle allegiance, so my army is nurgle" is no longer valid. Simply put, the allegiance of a battalion found in the pestilens battletome is pestilens. See second image for the relevant FAQ towards that matter.  I see where you are reading that this FAQ is only regarding double faction battalions, but this is not the case.  They say "does the rule allowing me to go over my allies cap ONLY apply to double faction battalions?".  The answer to this is also yes.  This means that we have no allowance for having a pestilens battalion in a nurgle army, as the rule that would allow it specifically does NOT apply to that situation.

To further clarify, the very last sentence of the black FAQ removes all doubt.  What is your army allegiance? Nurgle? Ok that's fine. What is the allegiance of your warscroll battalion? Pestilens? Ok cool. Just be aware that the points the battalion costs (and the points of all units in said battalion, regardless of their allegiance) are counted towards the allies limit.

Just don't want people running around thinking that they can use battalions in ways that the rules say they cannot. I know it's honest confusion, but at the end of the day, it's quite simply not something that we are allowed to do.

Screen Shot 2018-08-03 at 11.06.31 AM.png

Screen Shot 2018-08-03 at 11.16.56 AM.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that is all overridden by the rule I posted. This q and a was an attempt to get rid of ptwb and fates worn warband. They directly killed it with big faq.

the question you posted deals with multi-allegiance battalions and if they count as allies. Not entire armies that’s have appropriate keywords.

We will have to agree to disagree. 

Edited by sal4m4nd3r
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really confused as to why a rule printed in a battletome would somehow take priority over a general FAQ which postdates it. There is no room for exceptions in the FAQ as it stands, such as 'the battalion belongs to the battletome's faction or any allegiance which all of its units share'. It specifically outlines how the allegiance is determined and what restrictions arise from that allegiance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, RatOfGod said:

I'm really confused as to why a rule printed in a battletome would somehow take priority over a general FAQ which postdates it. There is no room for exceptions in the FAQ as it stands, such as 'the battalion belongs to the battletome's faction or any allegiance which all of its units share'. It specifically outlines how the allegiance is determined and what restrictions arise from that allegiance.

It doesn't.  It's not like 40k where you could say "codex vs BRB".  GW has specifically said that newer publications take precedence over older ones. What really stuck the dagger in the "I can still use the rule printed in the maggotkin battletome" line of thinking for me was that that same quoted line was printed in a few of the more recent battletomes (deepkin for example) but was conspicuously omitted from the Nighthaunt battletome, which was actually a 2.0 battletome.  In case the FAQ wasn't black and white enough.

Just to TLDR my previous post, the FAQ in question allows certain battalions to override the allies restrictions (only ones that are multi like SCE and Sylvaneth, etc).  It does not grant permission to us to use PTWB in a Nurgle army, and the last sentence in that FAQ (which is relevant to all armies) specifically forbids it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Luke1705 said:

It doesn't.  It's not like 40k where you could say "codex vs BRB".  GW has specifically said that newer publications take precedence over older ones. What really stuck the dagger in the "I can still use the rule printed in the maggotkin battletome" line of thinking for me was that that same quoted line was printed in a few of the more recent battletomes (deepkin for example) but was conspicuously omitted from the Nighthaunt battletome, which was actually a 2.0 battletome.  In case the FAQ wasn't black and white enough.

Just to TLDR my previous post, the FAQ in question allows certain battalions to override the allies restrictions (only ones that are multi like SCE and Sylvaneth, etc).  It does not grant permission to us to use PTWB in a Nurgle army, and the last sentence in that FAQ (which is relevant to all armies) specifically forbids it.

Riiiiight. except for the one time in the FAQ when they said you DONT have to use the most up to date warscroll...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 5kaven5lave said:

Well, I don’t know what to do, first I said no, then I was convinced yes. I’ll just leave it out I think to be safe. 

This is really the best policy in all situations. I respect @sal4m4nd3r's opinion, though I disagree with it. But were I in his shoes, I would certainly not build an army around assuming that I could use a questionable battalion.  For one, the gentleman's agreement of the game, to me, means that I should use the less powerful out of two possible interpretations in cases like this.  And for two, GW's willingness to go totally against what I've thought was pretty darn clear is enough for me to be wary of investing money into things that might get FAQ'd in the future.  For the record, not saying that I think he violates/would violated the gentleman's agreement.  Just that I try to stay as far away from that as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way I mentioned it in my post, but heres what the Legion of Nagash FAQ says for their Battalion situation.

 

 
Quote

 

Q: If I include a Chainguard, Execution Horde, or Death Stalkers warscroll battalion in a Legions of Nagash army, is the battalion (and the units in it) an ally?
A: Yes.

 

 
Chainguard, Execuation Horde, and Death Stalkers all use units that are 100% LoN Units, so theres no debate on "well one part of the battalion is NH Ally only".
 
Now granted we already mentioned the oddity that Nurgle cannot ally Pestilens, so I have no idea if that overrides the FAQ intention of "cross faction" battalions. I think thats the biggest weirdness about Pestilens battalions, as opposed to Everchosen.
Edited by kenshin620
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kenshin620 said:

By the way I mentioned it in my post, but heres what the Legion of Nagash FAQ says for their Battalion situation.

 

 
 
Chainguard, Execuation Horde, and Death Stalkers all use units that are 100% LoN Units, so theres no debate on "well one part of the battalion is NH Ally only".
 
Now granted we already mentioned the oddity that Nurgle cannot ally Pestilens, so I have no idea if that overrides the FAQ intention of "cross faction" battalions. I think thats the biggest weirdness about Pestilens battalions, as opposed to Everchosen.

Well, in most cases Nurgle doesn't have to 'ally' pestilens as they have the Nurgle keyword. If I'm running a straight Nurgle list I can take Pestilens and keep the Nurgle alliance. I just can't use monks for battleline for example. For the record, the war scroll builder on the community site will let me give Nurgle Traits, artifacts and spells to a verminlord. Because he's Nurgle alliance. Also pestilens. Depends on what you're trying to build. Eventually this is all going to get ironed out, but now that I've thought about it, bringing a pestilens battalion under a Nurgle ALLIANCE is not 'legal' for matched play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tasman said:

Well, in most cases Nurgle doesn't have to 'ally' pestilens as they have the Nurgle keyword. If I'm running a straight Nurgle list I can take Pestilens and keep the Nurgle alliance. I just can't use monks for battleline for example. For the record, the war scroll builder on the community site will let me give Nurgle Traits, artifacts and spells to a verminlord. Because he's Nurgle alliance. Also pestilens. Depends on what you're trying to build. Eventually this is all going to get ironed out, but now that I've thought about it, bringing a pestilens battalion under a Nurgle ALLIANCE is not 'legal' for matched play.

Precisely, that's what I was trying to articulate on the previous page. On the issue of the Corruptor, Warscroll builder specifically lets you give him those things because he is a NURGLE DAEMON so has access to their spell lore etc., but not SKAVEN so he can't be skitterleaped by a Verminlord Deceiver, for instance, which they've FAQ'd previously. The question here only pertains to Battalions and the point at which its content become allies, regardless of their shared keywords. It honestly feels like they need some more clearly worded, holistic rule on battalions to tie up all the loose ends at this point, given how many corner cases seem to have emerged from past inconsistencies on what exactly a battalion entails and its allegiance status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RatOfGod said:

Precisely, that's what I was trying to articulate on the previous page. On the issue of the Corruptor, Warscroll builder specifically lets you give him those things because he is a NURGLE DAEMON so has access to their spell lore etc., but not SKAVEN so he can't be skitterleaped by a Verminlord Deceiver, for instance, which they've FAQ'd previously. The question here only pertains to Battalions and the point at which its content become allies, regardless of their shared keywords. It honestly feels like they need some more clearly worded, holistic rule on battalions to tie up all the loose ends at this point, given how many corner cases seem to have emerged from past inconsistencies on what exactly a battalion entails and its allegiance status.

Amen to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Luke1705 said:

It doesn't.  It's not like 40k where you could say "codex vs BRB".  GW has specifically said that newer publications take precedence over older ones. What really stuck the dagger in the "I can still use the rule printed in the maggotkin battletome" line of thinking for me was that that same quoted line was printed in a few of the more recent battletomes (deepkin for example) but was conspicuously omitted from the Nighthaunt battletome, which was actually a 2.0 battletome.  In case the FAQ wasn't black and white enough.

Just to TLDR my previous post, the FAQ in question allows certain battalions to override the allies restrictions (only ones that are multi like SCE and Sylvaneth, etc).  It does not grant permission to us to use PTWB in a Nurgle army, and the last sentence in that FAQ (which is relevant to all armies) specifically forbids it.

That's exactly how I read it too. Has something changed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Riavan said:

That's exactly how I read it too. Has something changed?

No. GW could stand to be more explicit about these FAQ’s trumping anything that conflicts in a battletome, but the confusion largely stems from how GW worded the FAQ. In the end, I think it’s clear enough, but I can see how others are reading it differently.

This happened with the start of the game priority too. Some people read it to mean that it was like 40k with a roll off, with ties going to whomever had finished setup first. Sadly, this was not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 5kaven5lave said:

Changing the subject a bit, how unbelievably amazing is the new plastic GUO model? Such fun and so quick to build and paint. 

Makes me really excited to see how they'll update the Keeper of Secrets.

 

...

 

As long as the conspiracy they're actually trying to completely remove slaanesh isn't true!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/2/2018 at 3:56 AM, 5kaven5lave said:

Actually just checked, it’s 100, no idea where I got 80 from sorry. Ignore me, seems like not so good value now. 

Hey if you only got 100 points and need a caster then it’s perfect value! There isn’t much better for 100 points! Especially in magic heavy metas

Edited by sal4m4nd3r
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Played a game today vs Ironjawz. 

He took an Ironfist with 3 units of brutes and 2 units of Ardboys. Additionally, he had one unit of gore gruntas, a mega boss on maw krusha, a foot mega boss and some wizard.

He was 60 points under and also had Cogs.

I took Archaon, the Glot, 80 marauders (2 40 man squads), 10 plaguebearers, lord of blights, and the harbinger, plus geminids, leaving me at 1940, same as him.

Mission was shifting objectives so he took first turn to stop my movement and delay me from getting on the objectives while he scored 5 points each turn. He smartly barely touched my marauder units so that I couldn’t move or charge to gain movement, engaging my left squad with a squad of brutes and a squad of ardboys, letting all of the brutes swing but only 1 ardboy so that I couldn’t hit him back with as many models. The squad on the right was charged by the gore gruntas, but he did the same thing as the ardboys so that my marauders couldn’t do much in return. He killed 5 marauders with the brutes and that was basically it. I took a few models in between combat and battleshock (Archaon is great).

In my hero phase, Archaon did Archaon things, but failed to cast the geminids, and I tried to move the wheel (I did so but forgot to actually move it). The Glottkin got everything off, so I had an extremely beefy squad of marauders on the left and they had blades up. The marauder squad on the right I gave -1 to hit so that I could weather his 2 incoming brute squads. I put my witherstave harbinger off in Siberia to the left because I rolled Archaon out and over the models he was trying to block me with, but this meant that his Maw Krusha would have free reign to charge Archaon, so I wanted to make sure Archaon was as durable as possible. Between that and his Eye of Sheerian being on a 5, I felt relatively ok. In combat, I dropped two Gruntas and killed a brute on the right, and on the left in between Archaon, the blades marauders, and battleshock, the ardboys and the 1 squad of brutes on the left were all dead by the end of turn 1. This happened even though the marauders failed to get their native +1 to hit off.

Turn 2 he won the priority roll (I actually tied him but that’s fine what’s a double turn anyway) and proceeded to give his Maw Krusha +3 attacks on all of its profiles, plus the two units of Brutes. The brutes all then charged into my right flank of marauders, and the maw Krusha charged into my Plaguebearers because Archaon was benefiting from both the Glot’s +1 attack and the nurgle wheel’s +1 to wound, so slayer of kings scared him off. Basically, he felt that if he didn’t kill Archaon (which was certainly possible, especially with the Eye having a good roll and Archaon getting a 5+ FNP) then Archaon was going to chop the Krusha in half and seal the game, so he tried to block Archaon by charging into him with 10 ardboys. The destructive bulk of the MK killed 5 plaguebearers and then when he tried to charge them again, he got caught in between impassable terrain and his own brute, so he couldn’t get back within .5” of any units. The Brutes and the Grunta were able to kill about 15 marauders on the right flank through the -1 to hit, and I killed about 1 model from each unit in return, finishing off the Grunta unit. I had to burn my spare command point to stop horrible things from happening in the battleshock phase for those guys. Archaon solo’d the entire unit of ardboys before the battleshock phase, so it was not looking great for the IJ.

On my turn (bottom of 2) I got off a good plague squall, popping two brutes and plinking the MK, got geminids which made the MK -1 attack on all profiles and killed two more brutes with the other one, making both squads -1 to hit (so that was real rough because I made the marauder squad they were against -1 to hit again). Got all of the Glot’s stuff off on the other squad, and they proceeded to charge the MK with Archaon. Archaon couldn’t manage to proc the slayer of kings (even though it was on 5’s and all 5 attacks hit) but the MK rolled poorly on his saves and died to Droghor’s last attacks, before the Marauders even activated. He tried to do some things to the other marauder squad but his brute squads were small at this point and hitting on sixes (but not re-rolling because the Harbinger was still too far on the left flank) so they really didn’t do much. Archaon’s charge let him get within bravery manipulation distance of both Brute squads, so battleshock saw them both disappear.

We called it at the bottom of 2 with him having only a mega boss on foot and a backfield psyker left and me losing about 25-30 marauders and 9 plaguebearers since it was obvious that I would be able to hold all 3 objectives for the remaining 3 turns of the game.

Life lessons:

1) IJ have it rough this edition

2) Don’t do silly things like putting your Harbinger of Decay out in Siberia

3) Even post-FAQ Geminids are still silly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Luke1705 said:

No. GW could stand to be more explicit about these FAQ’s trumping anything that conflicts in a battletome, but the confusion largely stems from how GW worded the FAQ. In the end, I think it’s clear enough, but I can see how others are reading it differently.

This happened with the start of the game priority too. Some people read it to mean that it was like 40k with a roll off, with ties going to whomever had finished setup first. Sadly, this was not the case.

Ok, I was sure that bI read somewhere on here that that was the case..... roll off to see who went first. Where did I miss this now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Luke1705 said:

No. GW could stand to be more explicit about these FAQ’s trumping anything that conflicts in a battletome, but the confusion largely stems from how GW worded the FAQ. In the end, I think it’s clear enough, but I can see how others are reading it differently.

This happened with the start of the game priority too. Some people read it to mean that it was like 40k with a roll off, with ties going to whomever had finished setup first. Sadly, this was not the case.

It would be nice if the wording on a lot of things was clarified. But this battalion thing really had people spinning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...