Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
EMMachine

Allegiance + Battalions seems to have a new hole

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I think we all know the rule mess that is Allegiance + Battalions.

For those of you who don't know.

Here some of the points that already exist.

First of, the corerules itself don't care about battalions in case of allegiance. They only say that units in Battalions don't count towards the number of allies.

Quote

WARSCROLL BATTALIONS
A warscroll battalion can include
allies. They do not count against the
limit on the number of allied units
you can include in the army.

The Corebook FAQ tried to clear this with those two points:

Quote

Q: The rules say that a warscroll battalion can include allies
and that they don’t count against the number of allies in the
army. Does this rule only apply to battalions that share the
same allegiance as the army, but that have units from two
different factions (a battalion in a Daughters of Khaine army
that has Daughters of Khaine and Stormcast Eternals units,
for example)?
A: Yes. The faction a warscroll battalion belongs to is
shown on its warscroll, above the title of the battalion.
In addition, the battalion is assumed to belong to the
Grand Alliance that its faction is a part of. Warscroll
battalions that share the same allegiance as an army
can always be taken as part of the army, and if they
include any allied units, these units do not count against
the limits on the number of allies the army can have
(or against the points limit that can be spent on allies
in a Pitched Battle). An army can include a warscroll
battalion of a different allegiance to the rest of the
army, but if it does so the units in it do count against the
limits on the number of allies the army can have (and
the points for the battalion and the units in it count
against the points limit that can be spent on allies in a
Pitched Battle).

 

Quote

Q: Some warscroll battalions included in battletomes do not
have a faction listed above their title. How do I determine which
faction they belong to for the purposes of allegiance abilities?
A: The battalion belongs to all of the factions in that
battletome
. For example, the warscroll battalions in
Battletome: Stormcast Eternals are part of the Stormcast
Eternals faction.

Which basicly kills off how Battalions were used in 1.0 (with the combination that allied units are still allied units, without counting against ally restrictions)

With those points they created basicly that Soulblight can't take the "Castellans of the Crimson Keep" Battalion because it is classified as a "Death" Battalion, not a "Soulblight" Battalion.

In case of Beasts of Chaos they had to make an Errata for the 4 god Battalions, so they can be used in the god list as well as in a beasts of chaos List (because the 4 chaos God Allegiances weren't part of the Beasts of Chaos Book

Quote

Page 83 – Covens of the Changer
Change to:
‘Units from this battalion gain the Tzeentch keyword.
In addition, this warscroll battalion is part of the
Tzeentch faction and the Beasts of Chaos faction.’

Defenders of Lethis and Legion of Grief can't get any Battalions because they forgot to write in the text that Battalions get the keyword (but still having the problem in case of Legion of Grief that Deathmarch is a "Death" Battalion, not a "Deathrattle" Battalion.

And now with the release of Orruk Warclans, GW created basicly a new hole thanks to their FAQ.

As we see in the FAQ above, belong the Battalions to all Factions in the Battletome. So the Ironjawz and Bonesplitterz Battalions belong to Ironjawz, Orruks/Big Waagh! and Bonesplitterz.

Which means, that you can basicly put an Ironjawz Battalion into a Bonesplitterz list or vice versa without spending any allypoints because the Battalion is part of the Allegiance.

That raises the question (at least it has been mine for years), whether it would have been easier to give the battalions keywords as well, whereby Ironjawz Battalione would have "DESTRUCTION, ORRUK, IRONJAWZ" and Bonesplitterz Battalione "DESTRUCTION, ORRUK, BONESPLITTERZ "
With just a minimal change in the basic rules that allied units in battalions do not count against number / points, if the battalion has a the correct alleginace keyword and you would have had beat nearly all the FAQ points battalions in the subject.

What is your oppinion to this?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a mess that would be easily solved with Battalion keywords. They should really do that change.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes, battalions are a mess and really need some clean-up. Keywords would be a great solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of those areas where the casual manner of GW's rules writers tends to show through. They clearly know how Battalions are supposed to work and you can logically see how they are supposed to function. However there is room to interpret it differently. It's not a terrible mess, but they could clear it up if they got a more technical rules-lawyer style writer on board in their rules design phase

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Overread said:

This is one of those areas where the casual manner of GW's rules writers tends to show through. They clearly know how Battalions are supposed to work and you can logically see how they are supposed to function. However there is room to interpret it differently. It's not a terrible mess, but they could clear it up if they got a more technical rules-lawyer style writer on board in their rules design phase

I think it's not only the casual manner of rule writing. GW basicly created the entire problem with 2.0 .

When we look back to the old rules, the rules for Battalions were quite simple:

  • You can put a battalion in a list where either all units inside the Battalion have the keyword or it matched the Faction of the Battalion
  • All Units inside a Battalion count towards the Allegiance (but if not having the keyword they can't use abilities that require the keyword)

With those two points, every single point I said in the first point don't exist because in all monobattaltions there was still the fallback on the Unit Keywords (in that way the Problems with Soulblight, Beasts of Chaos, Defenders of Lethis, Legion of Grief and Orruk Warclans had never existed with the old ruleset).

This was the whole reason for the god Battalions of Everchosen which are are even in Everchosen Allegiance mostly unusable because the Everchosen units eat so many points and Marauders and Warriors couldn't fill the battlelines anymore after 2.0 (which is a point I didn't even mention in the opening post).

With the idea in 2.0 to restrict Battalions to mostly a single faction + grand Alliance with the FAQ GW basicly created something quite messy because it wasn't wrote in a way that worked at all without the FAQs (because Battalions had simply bypassed the Ally Rules in case of Listbuilding) and with FAQ we have the named cases of above.

Edited by EMMachine
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a mess. I think rule designer at GW is general excellent, and they have interesting ideas. The problem is writing these ideas down in a way that people outside GW can understand. I'm curious what the process is, but I'm surprised they don't have a third-party to the design team do the actual writing. Or would that impede the creative process?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im slightly triggered by this thread because of the murdering of my beloved Plaguetouched Warband. Since it is in the everchosen book I cant use it any more in my nurgle army.. even though it requires ONLY nurgle units in it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping that everybody has sent an e-mail to aosfaq@gwplc.com?  If not - do it!  The only way that GW know the situation isn't working well is by telling them 😉

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did send an email to them and I hope they are going to clarify soon. Basically you cannot enter a battalion as an allied because only units can be taken as allied, correct?

However I’m not sure about the definition of faction, can someone clarify or point to me where this is defined? Not trying to stretch but if Nighthaunt are a faction inside Legion of Grief by keyword, then the battalion should be too, no? 

I guess here the key is that since battalions don’t have keywords then they can be used only in their allegiance or grand allegiance, but is this because faction = allegiance? Genuine question, I always assumed the 2 things are different and not all factions had allegiances (for example deadwalkers) but factions could belong to multiple allegiances (like Nighthaunt in Legion of Grief and Nighthaunt).

Edited by alghero81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, alghero81 said:

I did send an email to them and I hope they are going to clarify soon. Basically you cannot enter a battalion as an allied because only units can be taken as allied, correct?

However I’m not sure about the definition of faction, can someone clarify or point to me where this is defined? Not trying to stretch but if Nighthaunt are a faction inside Legion of Grief by keyword, then the battalion should be too, no? 

I guess here the key is that since battalions don’t have keywords then they can be used only in their allegiance or grand allegiance, but is this because faction = allegiance? Genuine question, I always assumed the 2 things are different and not all factions had allegiances (for example deadwalkers) but factions could belong to multiple allegiances (like Nighthaunt in Legion of Grief and Nighthaunt).

Actually, Battalions can gain Keywords. In case of Legion of Nagash we have the following on Page 60:

Quote

Legions of Nagash

When you are choosing your army, you may decide it is taken from one of the Legions of Nagash. If you do, choose one of the following faction keywords. All units and warscroll Battalions on your army selected from this battletome gain the keyword:

  • Grand Host of Nagash
  • Legion of Sacrament
  • Legion of Blood
  • Legion of Night

With the release of Nighthaunt it was a little watered down with the "selected from this battletome"

Quote

Page 60 – Legions of Nagash
Add:
‘The following units may be selected as part of a Grand
Host of Nagash, Legion of Sacrament, Legion of Blood
or Legion of Night army and gain the appropriate
faction keyword:
• Chainrasp Horde
• Glaivewraith Stalkers
• Grimghast Reapers
• Guardian of Souls with Mortality Glass
• Guardian of Souls with Nightmare Lantern
• Knight of Shrouds
• Knight of Shrouds on Ethereal Steed
• Lord Executioner
• Spirit Torment’

Actually it would have been better if the units we see here had a specific keyword, so they could have fixed this with a keyword instead of a list of 9 units.

 

The problem with Lethis and Legion of Grief is. they don't mention battalions like Legion of Nagash did.

Quote

Lethisian Army

When you are choosing your army, you can decide it is a Lethisian army and has the Lethisian army allegiance instead of another allegiance. If you do so, all units in your army gain the LETHISIAN DEFENDER keyword. ...

Quote

Legion of Grief Army

When you are choossing your army, you can decide it is a Legion of Grief army and has the Legion of Grief allegiance instead of another allegiance. If you do so, all units in your army gain the Legion of Grief keyword. ...

If both armies would simply have mentioned "all units and warscroll Battalions" the thing would have been mostly fixed for those two (except that the Legion of Grief would only have Nighthaunt Battalions, after the Battalions of Legion of Nagash have no appropriate faction that is used for the Legion of Grief.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After my posts got downvoted in the Thread: Legions of Nagash Battalion choices?  I think some additional explanation is needed here.

I have the feeling GW has to refine the FAQ entries for Alliance + Battalion (or better make an errata to the rules) after the FAQs Entries are basicly rulechanges.

First off, there is a difference between 1.0 Warscroll Battalions with the faction name on the Warscrollbattalion and 2.0 Warscroll Battalions without the Factionname on the Warscroll Battalion:

HD_2puNgYMEtX28-WqEmjNzeiE6n4Af6HMaUC4uG

 

And we have one FAQ point that is mixed 1.0 and 2.0 and another that is only 2.0.

Quote

Q: The rules say that a warscroll battalion can include allies
and that they don’t count against the number of allies in the
army. Does this rule only apply to battalions that share the
same allegiance as the army, but that have units from two
different factions (a battalion in a Daughters of Khaine army
that has Daughters of Khaine and Stormcast Eternals units,
for example)?
A: Yes. The faction a warscroll battalion belongs to is
shown on its warscroll, above the title of the battalion.

In addition, the battalion is assumed to belong to the
Grand Alliance that its faction is a part of. Warscroll
battalions that share the same allegiance as an army
can always be taken as part of the army, and if they
include any allied units, these units do not count against
the limits on the number of allies the army can have
(or against the points limit that can be spent on allies
in a Pitched Battle). An army can include a warscroll
battalion of a different allegiance to the rest of the
army, but if it does so the units in it do count against the
limits on the number of allies the army can have (and
the points for the battalion and the units in it count
against the points limit that can be spent on allies in a
Pitched Battle).

The blue sentence is only 1.0 relevant after 2.0 battalions doesn't have the Faction named on the Warscroll. While the rest of the a Answer does basicly work for both Battalion types

And the other one for 2.0 without factions on the Battalion Warscroll

Quote

Q: Some warscroll battalions included in battletomes do not
have a faction listed above their title. How do I determine which
faction they belong to for the purposes of allegiance abilities?
A: The battalion belongs to all of the factions in that
battletome. For example, the warscroll battalions in
Battletome: Stormcast Eternals are part of the Stormcast
Eternals faction.

Looking at the downvote in the other thread it looks like those players are playing the 1.0 Battalions with the 2.0 FAQ even though the battalions don't fulfill the requirements for that point of the FAQ.

KN3DXAMJJxX7U0BxKiuFs6UU-U5G8EUCvtnPo3q3

jkebcROwzzZpZ0ntn9R2mmF_YFrg8SMARJOcBS6o

In the end if GW would change the FAQ that 1.0 Battalions would use the same FAQ as 2.0 Battalion by removing the Faction from the warscoll, it would most likely fix the problem for Legions of Nagash.

The Everchosen problem will hopefully be fixed with the Battletome Slaves to Darkness that should get released on December 14, 2019. The mainproblem remaining would be Defenders of Lethis and Legion of Grief as well as the strange ruling in case of Orruks that you can basicly ignor allypoints for Ironjawz and Bonesplitterz if the are part of a Battalion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution to the LoN battalions is pretty simple imo.

Death isn't a faction to begin with, it's a Grand Alliance. Therefore the battalions don't have a faction listed above them and as per FAQ belong to all factions in the battletome including Soulblight.

Edited by Sedraxis
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sedraxis said:

The solution to the LoN battalions is pretty simple imo.

Death isn't a faction to begin with, it's a Grand Alliance. Therefore the battalions don't have a faction listed above them and as per FAQ belong to all factions in the battletome including Soulblight.

It isn't what "without faction" has meant to be. The real solution would have been changing the Deathmarch Battalion to "Deathrattle" and Castellans of the Crimson Keep to "Soulblight" with an Errata. (it was a huge mistake from the beginning that they wrote "Death" above it because 1.0 would have allowed it in a deatharmy because all units inside have the keywords and the first FAQ would have given the Battalion the Death Grand Alliance regardless).

If this would be the case and they would add for the Legion of Grief that Battalions of the faction would get the Legion of Grief Keyword (like Legion of Nagash does for the Grandhost and the three Legions) or become part of the Legion of Grief Faction they would fix Legions of Nagash and Legions of Grief because the Legion of Grief would be allowed to use Nighthaunt Battalions as well as the Deathmarch Battalion after such a fix.

 

In the end working with Keywords like for the warscrolls would be the better construct than everything we have above, creating new holes with each new implemenation in the worst case.

Edited by EMMachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

It isn't what "without faction" has meant to be.

I'm pretty sure they mean that those battalions can be played in any faction in that Battletome. The same Battletome also includes information on factions, so even tho it's a mess of rules and keywords it checks out.

Legion of Grief not including Nighthaunt battalions is a choice, they didn't include them in a very specific list of models that they are able to take.

On what they should do:

GW should make sure that every tome includes all options it is allowed to take and doesn't use different wording every time. Every errata, tome or warscroll being written by different people isn't making this easier either. Players should also not try to break every possible rule combination and keep the game fun and fair.

Unfortunately neither of those will happen for now and RAW vs RAI discussions will never end in the current format.

My advice (and that of GW) is to just talk with your players and decide how you guys are gonna play your games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sedraxis said:

I'm pretty sure they mean that those battalions can be played in any faction in that Battletome. The same Battletome also includes information on factions, so even tho it's a mess of rules and keywords it checks out.

That's how I read it before I came on this forum and saw the posts. I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that since Death March and Castellans of the Crimson Keep are labeled as "Death" it was a catch all for the Death Legions and Soulblight within the LoN battletome. Even though the Soulblight units have that keyword they also all have the "Death" keyword, which is what lead to my assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, BaylorCorvette said:

Interestingly I just saw this article about a Soulblight list winning a tournament using Castellans of the Crimson Keep Battalion..

 

https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2019/11/aos-list-of-the-week-vampires-bring-swift-death-and-victory.html

🤷🏼‍♂️ It‘s just a mess. GW should release a chart for each battallion which simply shows who can take it. Or they simply allow every battallion of the same Grand Alliance to be taken in each subfaction of the Grand Alliance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2019 at 3:53 PM, JackStreicher said:

🤷🏼‍♂️ It‘s just a mess. GW should release a chart for each battallion which simply shows who can take it. Or they simply allow every battallion of the same Grand Alliance to be taken in each subfaction of the Grand Alliance.

If any army could take any battalion within its Grand Alliance that would cause all kinds of a mess to the balance system and steers us firmly back toward the mess of souped armies (ergo where mono-faction armies are at a disadventage to multi-faction which can min-max battalions and forces to the extreme).

 

Honestly I think GW for 40K and AoS right now has more than one team working on rules and as they are separate teams we end up with these confusing rules issues because one team does one thing; then another does something else then the FAQ tries to patch over between the two. Throw in some casual attitudes to rules and to the writing style and you've a recipe for potential issues. 

Again most of GW's rules issues are inherent to their staff and practice and style - these are sadly things that will likely take a long time to filter out of the system - though we can hope that the big increase in sales as GW has made improvements to their rules writing will show GW Management that improving the quailty of their rules does result in increased sales and profits for them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Overread said:

If any army could take any battalion within its Grand Alliance that would cause all kinds of a mess to the balance system and steers us firmly back toward the mess of souped armies (ergo where mono-faction armies are at a disadventage to multi-faction which can min-max battalions and forces to the extreme).

 

I completely disagree. If you are allowed to take a battalion of Nighthaunt in a LoN Army it would grant you more Battallions, while the units required might still be allies - so no balance issue there.

In a Grand Alliance death it would not matter at all since not the battallions are the major power spike but the Allegiance Abilities are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GW really just needs to stop using the term "faction" altogether.  The only defining terms should be "allegiance" and "keyword."  The army has an "allegiance" and you're not allying in units from a different "faction," you're allying in units with a specific "keyword."  Done and done.  A faction is not really a thing anyway; it's just the units that have that particular keyword.

Then, GW needs to go through and add into each battletome's errata an allegiance(s) for every warscroll battalion that doesn't have one.  If they can have a list of the base size for every unit in the game, they can have a list of every warscroll battalion's allegiance.  And then, going forward, do not release a book unless every battalion in it has its allegiance listed.  Make it part of the proof-reading process.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem comes with that there are numerous confusing rules out there.  The core rules simply state you may take a battalion if your army list includes all of the units required.  Personally that's the easiest way of doing it, no need to have keywords on battalions or any complications.  If you've a wight king, some skeletons and black knights then you can take Death March - regardless of if you're running as allegiance Soulblight, Legion of Grief or whatever.  Now perhaps some battalions may need a "may only be taken if allegiance is XYZ" or "may not be taken if condition ABC", but I think that's a lot easier to manage than what we've got currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RuneBrush said:

The problem comes with that there are numerous confusing rules out there.  The core rules simply state you may take a battalion if your army list includes all of the units required.  Personally that's the easiest way of doing it, no need to have keywords on battalions or any complications.  If you've a wight king, some skeletons and black knights then you can take Death March - regardless of if you're running as allegiance Soulblight, Legion of Grief or whatever.  Now perhaps some battalions may need a "may only be taken if allegiance is XYZ" or "may not be taken if condition ABC", but I think that's a lot easier to manage than what we've got currently.

I agree, this seems to make sense as well. I'm hopeful that with the December FAQ around the corner it will hopefully address some of these issues..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Rob Hawkins said:

and you're not allying in units from a different "faction," you're allying in units with a specific "keyword." 

This concept of not treating allies as factions would also allow some allegiances to ally in specific units, because each unit's NAME is a keyword.  So you could let an allegiance take a particular unit without taking that unit's entire "faction."  --The perfect example is adding FELL BATS and BAT SWARMS to the list of Flesh-eater Courts allies.  Then they could ally in  units of bats (which would still be appropriately thematic) without allowing anything else from the  SOULBLIGHT "faction."

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...