Does the publication of a new GHB invalidate features (like mercenaries) from the previous version?

[KriticalKhan]

I can't find anything specific on this. According to FAQs, Warscrolls and the like get overwritten by ones published at a more recent date, but unless there's something explicitly saying that an older feature is getting overwritten (like with the MP Realm Artifacts), is it still viable? Would I be able to use mercenaries in an army that's otherwise operating on GHB 2020 rules? Ideally, I'd like to find some kind of official ruling on this in the event it comes up in any games I might play in the future.

[Overread]

Typically speaking expansion rules like mercenaries don't get overwritten unless specifically noted. This is partly why GW split the books into a book and a points booklet. Because the latter is always invalidated by the new edition, whilst parts of the older books remain valid. 

 

Expansion rules, like mercenaries, battleplans etc... will all generally carry over. Remembering that the use of expansion rules varies area to area; some places use everything, others with opponents agreement and some just stick to the "core" rules and not use any expansion. 

Of course if GW updates the mercenaries rules then the new versions would override the old

[Tropical Ghost General]

11 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

So we have no confirmation.

and it's unlikely that we ever will. A definite answer means a potential loss of sales, as why invest in content that has a limited life span, especially if it's only a year at best. By being vague AF and not committing to a definitive answer it allows GW to sell rules and models with inbuilt obsolescence. The amount of NH players who invested in hexwraiths due to the Dec WD, as those battalions allowed the army to vaguely function again, and they were taken away without having the chance of seeing any real tournament play. Yes covid affected over events, so why they didn't they choose to make an exception to let them roll on for another year? And the OBR ones were Feb WD, so they were basically pointless page filler

[Lord Krungharr]

Yeah I'm turned off by the short lived awesomeness of many supplements and new endless spells, mercs, etc.   I'm even doubtful of the future utility of Forgeworld units like the Troggoth Hag (sold all my Legion of Azgorh now).

At least the Soulscream Bridge makes for good terrain.

[EMMachine]

15 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

I‘ve got cheated by buying and converting models for the mercenary companies which I now can‘t use. 👏🏼

Maybe they want you guys play open and narrative play instead of matched play?

I mean, mercenaries as well as Amboss of Apotheosis Character rules are both in the narrative section of the Generals Handbook.

They have to took away stuff in matched play that are not on sale anymore (because GH2019 is oop) or make it only allowed in Matched Play if the opponent agrees to it.

[EMMachine]

I think if something get's overridden GW will state it. We will see it with the Matched Play Rules and Meeting Engagements as well as you said with the Realmrules for Matched Play.

Pitched Battles (2019) for example states the following below the Title:

Quote

The following rules allow you to play Pitched Battle, either as a one-off game, or as part of a tournament. They replace the pitched Battle rules in the Generals Handbook 2018 and the Warhammer Age of Sigmar Core Book.

As long as there is not such a text or the Errata states that you can't use the rules any more the mercenary rules will stay active. The only thing that could happen is that some of the Mercenary Companies are not playable anymore if the units don't have a Matched Play Profile in the new book.

[Lord Krungharr]

I can’t find anything on Mercenaries in the new GHB or Pitched Battle Profiles.  Are they gone?   Actually I can’t even remember what book they were in before.   ******.  I got rid of my GHB2019 already. Were they in there?

I was thinking about getting a cannon/crew and Cogsmith.  

[Bayul]

So there are comments about mercenaries in the FAQ:



But Forbidden Power is not an "older publication". By that logic the rules from every regular battletome which was published before July would be invald as well. Ergo the mercenaries from Forbidden Power (Greyfyrd Lodge and Tenebrous Court) are still legal in matched play, while the mercenaries from the GHB 2019 are not.

[Tropical Ghost General]

1 hour ago, Bayul said:

Ergo the mercenaries from Forbidden Power (Greyfyrd Lodge and Tenebrous Court)

GW's term of older publication, relates to the same rules that have been updated in a more recent publication, rather than a set of rules that was published before (which is what the dictionary definition of older publication is, and yes it's stupid not to ever have this clarified by GW). So Greyfyrd Lodge and Tenebrous Court were updated in GHB19, meaning that the older publication for those mercenaries in FP were then replaced, meaning that they are no longer matched play legal without consent from your opponent/TO

[Kramer]

1 minute ago, Tropical Ghost General said:

GW's term of older publication, relates to the same rules that have been updated in a more recent publication, rather than a set of rules that was published before (which is what the dictionary definition of older publication is, and yes it's stupid not to ever have this clarified by GW).

Do you have any sources for GW's definition of the term. 

I agree that it makes sense, and GW should have been more specific. But there are a lot of assumption flying around about this one. So is the definition: 'older publictation relate to the same rules that have been updated in a more recent publication' something GW said, or an assumption/conclusion by you?

[Tropical Ghost General]

Just now, Kramer said:

assumption/conclusion by you?

This is information that I have gathered from asking some GW staff who are personal friends with some of the rules team. It isn't hardfact, has never been defined by GW themselves and the staff I asked also agreed that there has been no clarity on the issue and there should be some. But when you look at the two options of being either:

Option 1 - means when an older publication relates to those specific rules that have been replaced, such as the 2 mercenary companies first being published in FP, and then being updated in GHB19, meaning that GHB19 is the only place to use for mercenary rules, as the ones in FP are an older publication.

or

Option 2- Every single rules publication ever produced before GHB20 is completely invalidated as they were physically published before GHB20, including battletomes, rules books, expansions, etc....

Although as clear as mud with the language they have used, it's clearly not the intent that every book ever released before GHB20 is invalid and not allowed with player/TO consent. A glossary of terms really would clear up so much of the sloppy rules from GW and no 40k is not an excuse for sloppy rules for AoS

[JackStreicher]

So we have no confirmation.

[Kramer]

1 hour ago, Tropical Ghost General said:

This is information that I have gathered from asking some GW staff who are personal friends with some of the rules team. It isn't hardfact, has never been defined by GW themselves and the staff I asked also agreed that there has been no clarity on the issue and there should be some. But when you look at the two options of being either:

Option 1 - means when an older publication relates to those specific rules that have been replaced, such as the 2 mercenary companies first being published in FP, and then being updated in GHB19, meaning that GHB19 is the only place to use for mercenary rules, as the ones in FP are an older publication.

or

Option 2- Every single rules publication ever produced before GHB20 is completely invalidated as they were physically published before GHB20, including battletomes, rules books, expansions, etc....

Although as clear as mud with the language they have used, it's clearly not the intent that every book ever released before GHB20 is invalid and not allowed with player/TO consent. A glossary of terms really would clear up so much of the sloppy rules from GW and no 40k is not an excuse for sloppy rules for AoS

Thanks! Good indication what might be communicated later perhaps. 
don’t forget there is also options 3, 4 and probably more. 
maybe publications encompasses white dwarfs, maybe not. Maybe it means everything but battletomes. Etc. 
 

[JackStreicher]

2 hours ago, Tropical Ghost General said:

and it's unlikely that we ever will. A definite answer means a potential loss of sales, as why invest in content that has a limited life span

Everyone should have noticed by now that most products have a lifespan of a year and I am for one not willing anymore to give such temporary armies or rules even a second look and I won‘t spend any money on them anymore (including White Dwarf, Limited Edition Models or Anniversary Models etc.) The fact that the company is even u willing to officially declare that said products have a short lifespan is almost deception imo.

I‘ve got cheated by buying and converting models for the mercenary companies which I now can‘t use. 👏🏼

If I invest in a product I want to be allowed to use said product for at least three years in EVERY game mode, otherwise I am feeling milked and cheated.

 

all in all. I agree.
 

 

Edited August 11, 2020 by JackStreicher