AoS 2 - Nighthaunt Discussion

[EnixLHQ]

Okay, I think I see where the disconnect was. I'm referring to this AoS 3.0 PDF as Core Rules. I'm assuming that the document we'll be getting soon with the pitched profiles, PtG, and battlepacks will be called something else. GHB is usually what this is called, but it may not be called that this time since that is usually the publication that comes 6 months later.

When AoS 2 came out it operated with GHB 2016 pitched profiles that came out before second edition dropped, and then each battletome came with its own pitched profile. The designers said that's not going to be happening in 3.0, so I imagine we'll get a GHB 2021 or equivalent very soon to accompany 3.0. And then going forward battletome releases won't change that. No idea how they're going to handle that, though. Probably as supplements to the current GHB.

As for the warscroll battalion issue, I've been going through the three rules threads here and a few on other forums and what I'm seeing is that it's getting quoted over and over that there are no warscroll battalions anymore, but no one can actually source that as a fact yet. It's been challenged but unanswered. Bad news travels fast, even if it's not quite accurate.

It will take a pitched profile release with no points listed for the battalions, or a battlepack with restrictions in it, to exclude them right now. That hasn't happened just yet.

There's also a lot of hate surrounding that, too. People asking why sell us the entire Broken Realms series to get the extra battalions only to then take them away. One guy went off about pre-ordering all four books and feeling like he was mislead into doing so, that he'd been told he'd need them in print along with his battletome to play in the new edition, but is now being told that at the competitive games he wants to play (that he argues *is* the game [and that the other modes are just fluff]) won't include them and all this money was thrown away. And I get his point; we just got brand new subfactions and the Sorrowmourn Choir. We're not going to be able to use these in a matched, competitive battle? At all? I'd argue that is most of the flavor of AoS being stripped away.

I'm hoping this isn't the case. I'm *really* hoping it's more about limiting their use, instead. Unlimited core battalions as long as you can field them, but also having a warscroll battalion as an option. Warscroll battalions tend to be a lot of units, so would be the bulk of an army, and taking one would then be a strategic choice compared to maybe getting two or three more core battalions with the same units.

[punkycloud]

@EnixLHQ the rules are out now for everyone to read (download able from GW) and I think it states quite clearly that army battalions aren't allowed in matched play, just the new core battalions are allowed. Hopefully this clears that element for you. 

I appreciate that losing army battalions is a bit of a knock but NH are reasonably lucky having been given our battalions as possessions in Belakor. It should also level the playing field a little for some of those super battalions (Changehost, lords of the lodge, etc) that were a little oppressive. 

 

[Liquidsteel]

9 hours ago, EnixLHQ said:

And as has been pointed out to me in the past (rather harshly) you can't site sources like Goonhammer for rules interpretation.

Haha this was me, sorry.

But the point still stands, for example Sprues and Brews have an article up regarding Core Rules where they have misread a major rule. It says in "matched play" that the person who deploys first has Priority in the first round.

Priority means gets to decide who goes first.

They claimed that it means the player must go first, which subsequently gets spread around various forms of social media.

[Tali182]

4 hours ago, EnixLHQ said:

When AoS 2 came out it operated with GHB 2016 pitched profiles that came out before second edition dropped, and then each battletome came with its own pitched profile. The designers said that's not going to be happening in 3.0, so I imagine we'll get a GHB 2021 or equivalent very soon to accompany 3.0. And then going forward battletome releases won't change that. No idea how they're going to handle that, though. Probably as supplements to the current GHB.

GHB 2021 is for preorder this weekend too

[lare2]

Is there anything indicating what constitutes a commander? I see subcommanders are less than 10 wounds, which implies commanders are 10+? If so, wouldn't that royally do us over? 

[EnixLHQ]

37 minutes ago, punkycloud said:

@EnixLHQ the rules are out now for everyone to read (download able from GW) and I think it states quite clearly that army battalions aren't allowed in matched play, just the new core battalions are allowed. Hopefully this clears that element for you.

I have the rules. Had them since this morning and been over them about 5 or 6 times. I literally don't see any language saying warscroll battalions are out.

Can anyone, anywhere, cite where it does?

Because what I see is this:

*26.0 BATTALIONS
Battalions are formations of specific units that give you access to 
additional abilities. There are two types of battalion: warscroll battalions
and core battalions. The battlepack you are using will say whether you 
can use battalions and which types of battalion you can use. Battalions 
are picked after you have picked the units for your army.*

And

*When we republish a warscroll 
battalion, the new version 
takes precedence over versions 
with an earlier publication 
date or no publication date.*

It's right there...

[EnixLHQ]

25 minutes ago, lare2 said:

Is there anything indicating what constitutes a commander? I see subcommanders are less than 10 wounds, which implies commanders are 10+? If so, wouldn't that royally do us over? 

I wondered this, too.

Wild guess, but it looks like a commander is just a leader, the hero you choose to lead the battalion. If you include another hero, though, it's a sub-commander due to having less than 10 wounds. If it had more than 10 then it'd have to be the commander, not because of of the wounds, but because a sub-commander can't have more than 10.

[Liquidsteel]

32 minutes ago, EnixLHQ said:

I have the rules. Had them since this morning and been over them about 5 or 6 times. I literally don't see any language saying warscroll battalions are out.

Can anyone, anywhere, cite where it does?

Because what I see is this:

*26.0 BATTALIONS
Battalions are formations of specific units that give you access to 
additional abilities. There are two types of battalion: warscroll battalions
and core battalions. The battlepack you are using will say whether you 
can use battalions and which types of battalion you can use. Battalions 
are picked after you have picked the units for your army.*

And

*When we republish a warscroll 
battalion, the new version 
takes precedence over versions 
with an earlier publication 
date or no publication date.*

It's right there...

I will PM you the leaked image.

But for Matched Play you cannot take Warscroll Battalions.

[lare2]

50 minutes ago, EnixLHQ said:

Wild guess, but it looks like a commander is just a leader, the hero you choose to lead the battalion. If you include another hero, though, it's a sub-commander due to having less than 10 wounds. If it had more than 10 then it'd have to be the commander, not because of of the wounds, but because a sub-commander can't have more than 10.

This was my take as well. Suppose without the full information we just don't quite know yet... hopefully battlepacks will sort it out.  

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

1 hour ago, lare2 said:

This was my take as well. Suppose without the full information we just don't quite know yet... hopefully battlepacks will sort it out.  

I don't really think there is any ambiguity here. From the new core rules:

Commander: Leader

Sub-commander: Leader with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10

Leader is just the battlefield role we are already all familiar with. So any hero can fill the commander spot in a battalion, basically. But only small heroes (<10 wounds) can fill the sub-commander spot.

Basically, the idea seems to be to limit the number of big heroes you can have in a battalion, but allow you to bring small ones in both the commander and sub-commander position.

[lare2]

Just now, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I don't really think there is any ambiguity here. From the new core rules:

Commander: Leader

Sub-commander: Leader with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10

Leader is just the battlefield role we are already all familiar with. So any hero can fill the commander spot in a battalion, basically. But only small heroes (<10 wounds) can fill the sub-commander spot.

Basically, the idea seems to be to limit the number of big heroes you can have in a battalion, but allow you to bring small ones in both the commander and sub-commander position.

You're a hero mate. I've a game Thursday night and we're gonna trial run the rules. 

[Ruvich]

I wonder, if the Bataillons do go away, perhaps some of their abilities are going to get baked into possible Nh subfactions (Processions TM)?

 

also, what could the new rumor engine bit be? Questions over questions!

[The_Dudemeister]

4 hours ago, Liquidsteel said:

Haha this was me, sorry.

But the point still stands, for example Sprues and Brews have an article up regarding Core Rules where they have misread a major rule. It says in "matched play" that the person who deploys first has Priority in the first round.

Priority means gets to decide who goes first.

They claimed that it means the player must go first, which subsequently gets spread around various forms of social media.

Including by me in this very thread. Oops 😏

 

  

On 6/14/2021 at 4:18 AM, The_Dudemeister said:

[EDIT]The following text is booboo. For the sake of the answers to it, I'll leave what I've written but it gets the tiny Comic Sans treatment

 

Another change is that whoever deploys first HAS TO start the first turn. Spamming 6 heroes and many troops, we can reliably always go second. Going first became really bad for Nighthaunt anyway. Even with deepstriking we have very unreliable first turn charges, we have no shooting and no magic reaches the enemy. Rushing up to the objectives also worked less and less because the damage output and shooting of most armies just made that a suicide mission what was once our main way of playing the game. Now with very reliably going second, we can deploy defensively wit that in mind and use our speed and fly for counter-charges. Alongside the several rerolls from battalions and I think this tactic will be the dominant playstyle for us.

 

Edited June 15, 2021 by The_Dudemeister

[CaptainSoup]

4 hours ago, EnixLHQ said:

I wondered this, too.

Wild guess, but it looks like a commander is just a leader, the hero you choose to lead the battalion. If you include another hero, though, it's a sub-commander due to having less than 10 wounds. If it had more than 10 then it'd have to be the commander, not because of of the wounds, but because a sub-commander can't have more than 10.

I second this. When I first read it on WarCom last week I thought it meant that only leaders with 10+ wounds can be commanders which would hurt us, but looking at it now what you said makes much more sense. 

1 hour ago, Ruvich said:

I wonder, if the Bataillons do go away, perhaps some of their abilities are going to get baked into possible Nh subfactions (Processions TM)?

 

also, what could the new rumor engine bit be? Questions over questions!

Anything is possible on both points. For the Rumor Engine in particular, it kind of looks like whoever it is that they're just leaning an arm against some broken stone or building, just hanging out. 

"Oh hey didn't see you there. Who me? I'm just a a ghost chilling with my skull. Nagash is hanging out in his Pyramid so I figured I could chill by this rock for a bit. I'm sure he wouldn't mind."

[LordPrometheus]

4 hours ago, EnixLHQ said:

I have the rules. Had them since this morning and been over them about 5 or 6 times. I literally don't see any language saying warscroll battalions are out.

Can anyone, anywhere, cite where it does?

 

It's not in the Core PDF. Its in the full Rulebook that the Youtubers who got Dominion early have. Matched Play battlepacks is a section there that is not in the Core PDF.

[lare2]

Huh, looks like we just gained a lot of monsters. 

[CaptainSoup]

So we got some interesting bits of information from todays official GW Warhammer Community articles. 

Firstly the Disciples of Tzeentch preview confirms that Warscroll Battalions cannot be taken in Matched Play games:

Quote

Mike: Competitive play in the new edition will be shaken up by the new core battalions that any army can use. The fact that warscroll battalions can’t be taken in the matched play battle packs in the Core Book and General’s Handbook will affect Disciples of Tzeentch, as they lose one of the most ubiquitous parts of their tournament armies – the infamous Changehost. This is great news, as it will encourage many more varied lists to be taken.

The other article talks about the upcoming GHB release that will come along side the Core Rulebook release. 

Firstly it mentions the name of the Matched Play Battlepack we've been talking about, Battlepack: Pitched Profiles 2021.

It also mentions the return of Realm Rules, which was noticeably absent during the CRB reviews this past weekend. The article previews what you can get when we play in the realm of Ghur, including more core battalions for matched play that are outside the CRB, new abilities to use if you go second, and a new spell that lets your hero have the monster keyword for a turn (though again, only if your game is in the realm of Ghur).

Overall some interesting tidbits of information. I for one like the fact they regulated the realm rules for matched play, as it means its one less thing to worry about when playing more casual game settings.

 

Edited June 15, 2021 by CaptainSoup

[EnixLHQ]

Saw the leaked image and the new article. Giving more weight to the article, it sounds like it's one battlepack out of several, but it will be the one by which tournaments will be played for a while. So it sounds like warscroll battalions will be removed from tournaments and other competitive play for now, but other packs might exist or come later that include them.

The article flat out says why with some battalions being way too powerful, but doesn't it just feel...dry? Bare? An overcompensation? I imagine subfactions will still exist, and we'll have our allegiance abilities, but doesn't the lack of warscroll battalions feel sterile and flavorless?

Or does it sound like there's a truly even playing field now and we won't miss the loss? Do you think we stand more of a shot now?

I'm very conflicted.

[CaptainSoup]

6 minutes ago, EnixLHQ said:

Saw the leaked image and the new article. Giving more weight to the article, it sounds like it's one battlepack out of several, but it will be the one by which tournaments will be played for a while. So it sounds like warscroll battalions will be removed from tournaments and other competitive play for now, but other packs might exist or come later that include them.

The article flat out says why with some battalions being way too powerful, but doesn't it just feel...dry? Bare? An overcompensation? I imagine subfactions will still exist, and we'll have our allegiance abilities, but doesn't the lack of warscroll battalions feel sterile and flavorless?

Or does it sound like there's a truly even playing field now and we won't miss the loss? Do you think we stand more of a shot now?

I'm very conflicted.

That would be the correct assumption. There should be multiple battlepacks. One for Open, Matched and Narrative (Path to Glory), all of which should be in the full CRB on release (if the reviews are anything to go by). From what we can tell so far, only Matched play games restrict the use of Warscroll Battalions. 

This was more or less what I was trying to allude to in my earlier posts. Removing all Warscroll Battalions would make balancing the game easier, but it would make armies lose a good bit of their flavor, and on the mechanics side of things make a handful of armies that rely on their battalions that much weaker competitively. It a side effect of creating homogeneous rules for the sake of balance. 

The idea of losing more of what makes our army work when we were already on the backfoot competitively just makes things hurt all the worse for me. The sooner our new battletome comes out the better. 

[EnixLHQ]

I'm behind on my content, so I just got around to this, but Doug does into the detail I was looking for.

 

[Neck-Romantic]

With all of the 3.0 changes at this point Im hoping for a full redesign of the faction

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

54 minutes ago, Neck-Romantic said:

With all of the 3.0 changes at this point Im hoping for a full redesign of the faction

I'm kind of hoping for that for basically all Death factions except Soulblight, but I don't know how realistic it is to expect attention soon. Nighthaunt is one of the oldest battletomes, OBR got hurt a lot by the command point changes and FEC is a very small faction that really need new units. But I don't really think we will see three Death battletomes/expanisons in the first two years of AoS 3. I think at least one Death faction is going to struggle for a while.

[Liquidsteel]

I suspect that there will be erratas for every faction upon release of 3.0.

OBR may very well get both Command Points and Relentless Discipline, for example, giving them access to both.

[Ellarr]

On 6/14/2021 at 11:21 PM, EnixLHQ said:

I'm walking back on this one (and editing that in the post). I misread 13.3.3 and thought that this overrode Ethereal. It does not.

What battlepack where? I did a quick google for "matched play battlepack" and came up dry. And as has been pointed out to me in the past (rather harshly) you can't site sources like Goonhammer for rules interpretation. Bell of Lost Souls agrees with you, but also point out it's a rumor and that we'll have to see. Either way, the battlepack isn't out yet, and until it is it's not superseding anything. Everything else you mention here is speculation, which is what we're trying not to do right now. Speculation tends to be negative for us as an army since we're already primed to believe everything new will nerf us, while the stuff that has actually come out, like these rules, actually seem to balance the field in a good way. RAW was and is the way to handle the rules, but you can't do that while also injecting speculation.

My word of caution here is simply this: The game designers went out of their way in each of the reveal videos to say that 3.0 rules were written with existing battletomes in mind, and they will continue to work and play in any game using 3.0 rules. They then added text in the 3.0 Core Rules that everything that was valid before is until it is superseded by publication date. This means that until books get updated, their existing rules are still valid. They have to be, otherwise no one could play anything right now. Like I said, if you were to play a game today, what materials would you have access to? These 3.0 rules and your current battletome. So warscroll battalion up (and with current points) to your heart's content, even if it's matched play.

If it's true the first battleplack(s) we get say no warscroll battalions, then that's what the rule is going to be when it/they get released. If that's tomorrow, then my entire point here is moot tomorrow. But it could be next week, or next month.

Everything beyond that is speculation. We can speculate that the reason for this kind of call is to remove the more powerful battalions from matched games until they can be balanced in a new book. Or that they want a very sterile matched tournament scene where they are better able to balance around abilities and artefacts since they said they want to use the FAQ system far less than they do now. Or, that it was simply made that way for testing purposes and there will be new language in the final release that will allow warscroll battalions with caveats attached, like maybe only 1 per 1,000 points or something. None of this makes any difference, though.

Hi! Writer for Goonhammer here who's had access to the complete Core Rule Book.

To offer some clarity - the Matched Play battlepack that is in the core rule hardback book does indeed specify that Core Battalions are legal and that Warscroll Battalions cannot be included in your list.

This does not close the door on the possibility of the pitched battles battlepack in GHB allowing core battalions, but between this and Ben Johnson's comments on camera talking about removing the 'haves and have nots', I think authorial intent is pretty clear and it would be a significant surprise if Warscroll Battalions are legal come GHB time.

Edited June 17, 2021 by Ellarr

[EnixLHQ]

58 minutes ago, Ellarr said:

Hi! Writer for Goonhammer here who's had access to the complete Core Rule Book.

To offer some clarity - the Matched Play battlepack that is in the core rule hardback book does indeed specify that Core Battalions are legal and that Warscroll Battalions cannot be included in your list.

This does not close the door on the possibility of the pitched battles battlepack in GHB allowing core battalions, but between this and Ben Johnson's comments on camera talking about removing the 'haves and have nots', I think authorial intent is pretty clear and it would be a significant surprise if Warscroll Battalions are legal come GHB time.

Thanks for coming by and filling us in on that. I think the discussion about it is all done now, and I'm on the same page with it all.

The only thing I'll gripe about right now is that I think it was a fumble for GW to have released half the story like that. They could have been more up front about the battlepack and its restriction in the same breath as the AoS 3.0 rules. Even a preview would have been nice. Without it, disputes like this happen.

I'm sure battlepacks in the future will allow warscroll battalions again, but I am also sure they will only allow 3.0 battalions or have heavy restrictions if they do. My fear, though, is that those battlepacks will be viewed as inferior or non-standard, or not the competitive gold standard, and thus regulated to "fluffy" tables.